Return of the Guilder

[Fizz]

Hi all-

I've been thinking that the Guilder deserves to be a full class. I mean, if the noble can make it into the 3E rules, a guilder can too. Yes, the rogue has plenty of skills. But not all guilders should be able to sneak attack.

So, i've thought up some ideas for people to consider. Clearly this is no where near done, but just a starting point.

------------------
The Guilder:

Hit Die: d6
Base Attack Bonus: Moderate (as a rogue)
Weapons: Proficient with light armor, simple weapons, plus 2 martial weapons of his choosing.
Saves: Good Will, Good Reflex?, Fort Poor

Class Skills
Administrate (Wis), Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Forgery (Int), Gamble (Wis), Gather Information (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (all), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Speak Language (Int), Use Rope (Dex)

Plus, the guilder chooses 3 other skills to be class skills.

Skill Points: 10

Class Features:
Expert: The guilder is not constrained by the maximum ranks as other classes are. The maximum ranks he may have in a given skill is equal to 3 + 1.5 times his level. Thus, at 2nd level his max ranks would be 6 instead of the usual 5. At 10th he could have 18 ranks, instead of 13. At 20th he could have 33 instead of 23. (This emulates the 2nd Ed guilder ability of having extra nonweapon proficiency slots.)

Silver Tongue: Constant dealing with others gives the guilder a keen sense of how to make them believe his lies. He may attempt a retry of the Bluff skill, but with a –5 penalty.

Pidgin: Guilders have a knack for communicating despite barriers of an uncommon language. He can communicate and understand simple concepts, such as the need for food, desire to trade, warnings, etc. This works similar to the Decipher Script skill. The guilder makes a Pidgin check equal to d20 plus his Intelligence modifier plus his level. The DC varies with the complexity of information that is trying to be conveyed.

Improvised Tools: The guilder can select any two skills that require tools. With these two skills, the penalty for using improvised tools is halved.

Skill Mastery: As the rogue special ability. (Probably gained a couple times.)

Slippery Mind: As the rogue special ability

--------------------------

I'm not sure if these should all be standard abilities (Expert definitely should be) or optional abilities that he chooses as he advances, the way a rogue gains some special abilities at higher levels.

I'm sure others have some further ideas that would flesh it out a bit more. What does everybody think?


-Fizz

[gazza666]

I see two issues.

Firstly, it is strongly recommended that no character have more skill points than a rogue (the same way that nobody should have a better BAB progression than a fighter). And secondly, the "expert" ability has the potential for great abuse when it comes to qualifying for prestige classes.

Now, one could argue that the guilder - not being very good at combat, and so forth - is not unbalanced even with this issues. However, that fails to take into account the possibility of multiclassing - grabbing a single level of guilder is enough to grant the expert ability, which lets more traditional characters qualify for prestige classes earlier than they are "supposed" to be able to.

I would suggest instead:

Drop the skill points to 8 per level. It is far too tempting to "dip" into this class for a single level otherwise; you get pre-3.5 ranger syndrome.
Change the expert ability to instead provide (say) a +2 competence bonus to 3 skills, with possibly the number of skills and the bonus increasing with level. (Or one could treat the progression similar to a ranger's favoured enemy).

[Fizz]

grabbing a single level of guilder is enough to grant the expert ability, which lets more traditional characters qualify for prestige classes earlier than they are "supposed" to be able to.

Actually, i thought about this. Since numbers always get rounded down in 3E, the expert ability wouldn't have any effect at 1st level. One would need at least 2 levels of guilder to gain that extra rank.


I would suggest instead:

Drop the skill points to 8 per level. It is far too tempting to "dip" into this class for a single level otherwise; you get pre-3.5 ranger syndrome.
Change the expert ability to instead provide (say) a +2 competence bonus to 3 skills, with possibly the number of skills and the bonus increasing with level. (Or one could treat the progression similar to a ranger's favoured enemy).


The first point is a valid concern. So long as he didn't get anything else (or nothing overly potent) at 1st level, it'd be ok imo. (I mean, every class needs something unique at 1st level right?)

The second point, well, i like the idea of increasing ranks. The idea is to allow him to become a specialist, and qualify for skill-dependent benefits sooner than other classes. He doesn't do much else, but with those few skills he's a true master.

The progression similar to a ranger's favored enemy- that has possibilities. I'll have to think about that.

Thanks for the input!


-Fizz

[gazza666]

Actually, i thought about this. Since numbers always get rounded down in 3E, the expert ability wouldn't have any effect at 1st level. One would need at least 2 levels of guilder to gain that extra rank.

The way it is written, I interpreted this as an ability that was tied to character level rather than class level - which means that it would be possible to take 1 rank of guilder and 3 ranks of rogue, at which point you have a maximum of 9 ranks rather than the usual 7. Most prestige classes
require 8 ranks of skills to get into, with the assumption that you will be at least level 6 before taking taking your first level in a prestige class; this would allow it to occur 1 level earlier. Granted, that may not cause the sky to fall down, but it is a perhaps unintended consequence.

However, if you're saying that only the levels in guilder have this benefit... well, firstly it doesn't actually alter the problem (you can still get into a class early, it's just that now you can't multiclass to do so; for some prestige classes, that may be a worthwhile trade). Secondly, I can't think of how to correctly write such a benefit so that it won't be misinterpreted the way I did above. Maximum skill ranks is always based on character level rather than class level; you'd need some sort of formula to calculate it based on the number of guilder levels you had... messy.

[irdeggman]

No more "core classes" will be added to Chapter 1.

That is the point of the "sanctioning". It was voted on by the community and not something I merely "declared". Now that doesn't mean that there won't be some modifications to things in Chap1 and 2 but in general they stand as written. The variant paladin of Nesirie does need improving and there will probably be included some Prestige Classes that are generic, that is aren't specifically tied to any one region or culture - but rather may cross cultures.

There was specific logic in not including a Guilder core class in the BRCS.

It was always a "weak" class.

The class can basically be consumed via the rogue and noble.

Since it was a regionally specific class - anything along its lines would better fit as a Prestige Class. In fact that would probably be the best way to handle it - a class that is much more oriented towards domain level economics than adventuring.

[Fizz]

The way it is written, I interpreted this as an ability that was tied to character level rather than class level -

Well, it is level-based, but fractions in 3E always round down. The rule i was using was 3 + 1/2 guilder level. So, at first level, that's 4. Same as any other character.


which means that it would be possible to take 1 rank of guilder and 3 ranks of rogue, at which point you have a maximum of 9 ranks rather than the usual 7.

However, if you're saying that only the levels in guilder have this benefit... well, firstly it doesn't actually alter the problem (you can still get into a class early, it's just that now you can't multiclass to do so; for some prestige classes, that may be a worthwhile trade). Secondly, I can't think of how to correctly write such a benefit so that it won't be misinterpreted the way I did above. Maximum skill ranks is always based on character level rather than class level; you'd need some sort of formula to calculate it based on the number of guilder levels you had... messy.

The increased max ranks would apply to guilder levels only. As above, 1 level of guilder won't get you any increase in max ranks. Instead consider a 6/2 rogue/guilder. He'd have 10 for his max ranks, only 1 more than the guilder.

Maybe instead of the formula, it should simply be a bonus max rank at every 2 out of 3 levels. That would remove the confusion from multiclassing.

As for qualifying for a prestige class early, i think that's ok. Remember, this is all the guilder does- skills.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

No more "core classes" will be added to Chapter 1.

I wasn't proposing it should be added to the Sanctioned version. But i hope that doesn't mean it can't be discussed for those of us who want to add it to our own campaigns.

It was always a "weak" class.[/quote]

The class can basically be consumed via the rogue and noble.[/quote]

The Noble is an NPC class improved to be a core class. The Guilder, in my mind, does the same for the Expert NPC class.

But i do see how people could lump the two together. In the way that the Rjurik call Bards `Skalds', maybe the Brecht call Nobles `Guilders'. Still, i think there are enough ideas to warrant a class.


Since it was a regionally specific class - anything along its lines would better fit as a Prestige Class. In fact that would probably be the best way to handle it - a class that is much more oriented towards domain level economics than adventuring.

I find that argument inconsistent with the rest of the setting- Many core classes are regional in Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and Khinasi. The Brechts need one of their own. (And it fits well among the merchants of Khinasi too, anyways.)


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

I wasn't proposing it should be added to the Sanctioned version. But i hope that doesn't mean it can't be discussed for those of us who want to add it to our own campaigns.

Then this should go to the Royal Library thread and not the BRCS one. This thread is supposed to be dedicated to the BRCS itself - questions, changes, etc.




I find that argument inconsistent with the rest of the setting- Many core classes are regional in Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and Khinasi. The Brechts need one of their own. (And it fits well among the merchants of Khinasi too, anyways.)

But the original 2nd requirement for the guilder was specifically to have come from the Great Bay region. That is specific to a region hence the reason I said that it should be in the Atlas (as a Prestige Class).

In the BRCS there is no restriction on the paladin like there was in 2nd ed. There is however a prefered race/culture thing. That does not mean that every class isn't available in all cultures only that they are not very common (and some are extremely rare). Elven clerics/paladins are the one exception.

[Fizz]

Then this should go to the Royal Library thread and not the BRCS one. This thread is supposed to be dedicated to the BRCS itself - questions, changes, etc.

Ooops. Didn't realize putting here meant a `proposal' for BRCS. Thought this area it was more of a generic discussion board for 3E-like conversion. OK, feel free to move the thread over to the Royal Library. :)


-Fizz

[gazza666]

IMany core classes are regional in Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and Khinasi.

In 3rd edition, classes don't mean what they used to. Someone with a level of barbarian isn't necessarily a primitive savage - it's just someone that can rage in combat. Someone with a level of paladin doesn't necessarily belong to a knightly order - it's just someone that has learned to channel their faith into minor healing abilities. Likewise, a fighter isn't necessarily a soldier (could just be someone that took a course in Power Attack 101), a rogue isn't necessarily a thief, and so forth.

Granted, spellcasters tend to be the exception, but that's only because the mechanics of spell acquisition do not favour multiclassing.

[irdeggman]

In 3rd edition, classes don't mean what they used to. Someone with a level of barbarian isn't necessarily a primitive savage - it's just someone that can rage in combat. Someone with a level of paladin doesn't necessarily belong to a knightly order - it's just someone that has learned to channel their faith into minor healing abilities. Likewise, a fighter isn't necessarily a soldier (could just be someone that took a course in Power Attack 101), a rogue isn't necessarily a thief, and so forth.

Granted, spellcasters tend to be the exception, but that's only because the mechanics of spell acquisition do not favour multiclassing.

Hmm actually classes are better themed than that. A barbarian is not merely someone who can rage.

Read the Background information in the PHB it talks about what the classes are about. All of the color information in the PHB is not included in the SRD so if you are using that as your source (many people do) it lacks a lot of information that helps to fill out what the classes are about.

Paladins in 2nd ed never had to be "knights" either. They are still more than character who can channel their faith into minor healing. There is that Code of Conduct thing (no other class has it) that separates them from clerics and the like. Again the Background information in the PHB is useful.

The major difference between 2nd ed and 3.x as far as classes go is the relative ease with which a character can multiclass. No set class combination restrictions (nor level restricitions) based on race nor any minimum ability score requisites to take a class. A character can choose to be a fighter with a 5 strength if he wanted to (IIRC in 2nd ed the minimum was an 8) he just isn't very good in melee while he could have a relatively high dex and be a capable archer.

[gazza666]

Hmm actually classes are better themed than that. A barbarian is not merely someone who can rage.

Read the Background information in the PHB it talks about what the classes are about. All of the color information in the PHB is not included in the SRD so if you are using that as your source (many people do) it lacks a lot of information that helps to fill out what the classes are about.

In my opinion, the "background" information is meaningless fluff that is flat out contradicted by the mechanics of multiclassing.

If you want a campaign whereby barbarians are primitive savages, you'll need something besides the core rules to play such a campaign. The core rules allow you to take level 1 as a fighter, level 2-3 as a ranger, level 4 as a barbarian, and then continue on as a fighter for the next couple of levels until you reach level 6 or so when you pick some cool-power prestige class. What does the "background" section have to say about such characters?

You could describe such a character as someone that started off as a trained veteran, then spent some time in the woods, where he kicked around with a bunch of orcs that taught him their primitive ways, before re-enlisting... but does anyone not find that story ludicrous? (Incidentally, if you're human this would not impose any XP penalties).

If you think that this sort of multiclassing is hard to justify for story reasons - that is of course your prerogative. But it's absolutely allowed as far as the 3.5 core rules are concerned.



Paladins in 2nd ed never had to be "knights" either. They are still more than character who can channel their faith into minor healing. There is that Code of Conduct thing (no other class has it) that separates them from clerics and the like. Again the Background information in the PHB is useful.

The code of conduct is what I was referring to by "faith". (Of course in my campaign paladins have no such code of conduct anyway, but we're talking about the core rules here, so that's irrelevant).



The major difference between 2nd ed and 3.x as far as classes go is the relative ease with which a character can multiclass. No set class combination restrictions (nor level restricitions) based on race nor any minimum ability score requisites to take a class. A character can choose to be a fighter with a 5 strength if he wanted to (IIRC in 2nd ed the minimum was an 8) he just isn't very good in melee while he could have a relatively high dex and be a capable archer.
And this difference is exactly why I claim that classes are just collections of abilities. The reason to multiclass is not "I want my fighter to have some primitive roots"; it's "I want the rage ability". The former, if you're one who hates the idea of power gaming, can be had just by declaring it so (and maybe buying only hide armour and a spear instead of more civilised equipment). There's no need to multiclass for that. The only reason to multiclass is if you want some mechanical ability rather than just a story idea.

[Danny_Cline]

In my opinion, the "background" information is meaningless fluff that is flat out contradicted by the mechanics of multiclassing.


The only reason to multiclass is if you want some mechanical ability rather than just a story idea.

I think this is a bit of an overstatement. Certainly, a mechanical advantage is a reason to multiclass, but just as certainly it's not the only one. Story ideas are also a reason to multiclass, and a potent one, often (though not always) leading people into suboptimal designs (in particular, almost every multiclassed spellcaster would nearly have to be of the "story-justified" type).

I'll grant that a character multiclassing into (for example) barbarian can be a little tricky to justify, but the justification can still be "I'm losing control of the beast within" rather than "I want to be able to rage once a day and gain some other abilities for which I'd have to give up the best armor choices." On the other hand, prestige classes are a little different. Regardless of any mechanical benefits which may be the reason some players want to join, prestige classes require that at least lip service be paid to story justifications, in the character having to perform some campaign related goal or take a number of sub-optimal skills or feats.


If you want a campaign whereby barbarians are primitive savages, you'll need something besides the core rules to play such a campaign. The core rules allow you to take level 1 as a fighter, level 2-3 as a ranger, level 4 as a barbarian, and then continue on as a fighter for the next couple of levels until you reach level 6 or so when you pick some cool-power prestige class. What does the "background" section have to say about such characters?

You could describe such a character as someone that started off as a trained veteran, then spent some time in the woods, where he kicked around with a bunch of orcs that taught him their primitive ways, before re-enlisting... but does anyone not find that story ludicrous? (Incidentally, if you're human this would not impose any XP penalties).

This is certainly not the only way one could describe such a character. Even looking at the Scandinavian cultures that the Rjuriks are primarily based on, the berserker/barbarian was a prominent type of warrior but certainly not the only one. Martial training of a less chaotic sort was certainly not unknown (not everyone was a berserk) and woodland and tracking skills would no doubt have proved valuable as well. These multiple abilities don't require the story you propose above, just an interest in finding out a little of many of the skills and talents a group (or several groups) practice. Think of (another real-world analogy) a student who studies several martial arts, or martial arts and fencing, or fencing and tracking. The people who do such things may be dilettantes, but they are not impossible to believe in, nor do they require ludicrous story explanantions, just a deep curiosity. Real people can rarely be claimed to be following some optimal game path.

So yes, you are correct in that the multiclassing system doesn't require any sort of story justification. However, it certainly doesn't contradict or make meaningless class background information, nor disallow or make ludicrous story-based or campaign-based justifications for multiclassing. In fact, the non-numeric descriptions of the races (such as the general personality description, alignment tendencies, and physical description) and the classes (standard backgrounds, origins, and motivations) are not meaningless. Even for characters who do not match these usual characteristics, the standard version plays an important role for the characters, as their differences from the norm are a large part of what make them interesting.

[Danny_Cline]

Sorry if my last post was a bit off-topic in a thread at least originally intended to promote the reintroduction of the Guilder or at least an exploration of how it could be made to work as a DM specific add-on. I don't necessarily oppose the use of the Guilder, though I'd suggest one needs to be careful in making them to avoid making them either game-breaking in some areas or utterly inferior to other classes. I agree with gazza that the following are definitely problems:



Firstly, it is strongly recommended that no character have more skill points than a rogue (the same way that nobody should have a better BAB progression than a fighter). And secondly, the "expert" ability has the potential for great abuse when it comes to qualifying for prestige classes.


His fixes of both problems seem reasonable too:




Drop the skill points to 8 per level. It is far too tempting to "dip" into this class for a single level otherwise; you get pre-3.5 ranger syndrome.
Change the expert ability to instead provide (say) a +2 competence bonus to 3 skills, with possibly the number of skills and the bonus increasing with level. (Or one could treat the progression similar to a ranger's favoured enemy).


How to fix the Guilder to make it not useless compared to the Rogue, but still not overpowered is a little tougher. One suggestion is to give the Guilder a greatly expanded selection of class skills, possibly even to the extreme of the Akashic in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, making all skills class skills. This would of course require that the Guilder's special abilities be significantly weaker than the Rogue's (which is probably almost guaranteed given the nature of the classes). Another option is to give the Guilder a player-chosen class skill list (in a little more extreme version than Fizz's Original one) such as:

Class Skills
The guilder's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Craft (Int), Knowledge (all skills, taken individually) (Int), Profession (wis), and any ten additional skills chosen by the player. These skills are chosen at first level and thereafter cannot be changed.

In either case, I'd suggest that the Guilder have equal skills per level to the Rogue (but no more) and generally somewhat weaker (and vastly different) special abilities, but not completely inconsequential ones. Additionally, the second option above could be modified to allow six, eight, or twelve player-chosen class skills as seems appropriate given their other abilities. The good Will saves seem to be another worthwhile difference from the Rogue, either coupled with good Reflex saves or not. Another possibility is to grant the Guilder Medium armor proficiency (and probably only simple weapons), and maybe even d8 hit dice, further differentiating them from the Rogue by leading them away from being so steath-oriented.

Anyway, the Guilder would be a difficult class to make both balanced and useful, but something like this seems like a possibility to get there without stepping on too many toes of the other classes.

[irdeggman]

Here is some things that may be useful.

Follow the link to an old "discussion" about the noble.

There are several documents (i.e., versions) there.

The first one was my original concept for a noble. IMO it does a whole lot towards capturing the guilder issue but it was shot down via polls and we ended up with the current version in the sanctioned chapter.

I've attached the word file to make it easier to "find".

http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=2401&highlight=noble

[Magnus Argent]

I find that argument inconsistent with the rest of the setting- Many core classes are regional in Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and Khinasi. The Brechts need one of their own. (And it fits well among the merchants of Khinasi too, anyways.)

I like the idea of having regional base classes. There are pleanty of good base classes out there that could very well fit into a Birthright campaign. For Brechtur, it seems like the Swashbuckler and Scout classes are good fits, no?

[RaspK_FOG]

If you are going to introduce such a class, good ideas are the Illicit Barter ability found in the Star Wars d20 Scoundrel class, as well as The Wheel of Time d20 Wanderer class (I think). Check up on those two classes for a good theme.

Additionally, it's very important to actually give the Guilder some more defining skills: Appraise, Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Profession, Spot, and an additional 10 skills as class skills seems to be a sound mechanic (though I would go for 10 + Int modifier); I would also grant him bonus feats chosen from a list, including Cosmopolitan and Skill Focus. Contacts from the Scoundrel and Noble are also a sound mechanic if handled properly.

[Fizz]

Thanks everyone for the input!

Seems people are worried about the extra-ranks idea. I guess that's not usually a concern of mine since my group doesn't use prestige classes.

While i agree the guilder is sort of a niche class, i've always (even back in 2nd ed) liked the idea of a solely skill-based class. I know that many consider the rogue to be that class for 3E, but it's too sneak-focused for that purpose. In my mind, the guilder should be to the expert what the fighter is to the warrior.

The trick is finding enough special things to make it a worthwhile class. That was easy in 2nd Ed where non-weapon proficiencies were scarce.

I will consider all the stuff stated here and see what i can work up. Any other suggestions are always welcome!

-Fizz

[geeman]

At 08:53 PM 7/19/2006, Birthright.net Message Boards wrote:

>Hi all-

Hello back. Let`s see if this whole interaction between boards/list
is up and going....

>Class Skills
>
>Administrate (Wis), Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Concentration
>(Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Forgery
>(Int), Gamble (Wis), Gather Information (Cha), Intimidate (Cha),
>Knowledge (all), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis),
>Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Speak
>Language (Int), Use Rope (Dex)
>
>Plus, the guilder chooses 3 other skills to be class skills.
>
>Skill Points: 10

As a rule of thumb, I found a couple of things in designing classes
and assigning them skill points. One, they should probably not
exceed 8/level. It just seems to work out well if that`s the cap,
especially if one considers that an INT bonus might bump it up even
higher. In general, I found 1/3 of the current total list of class
skills is a good number. That way there are always things the PC
might be able to do better but he has access to a decent number of
his class skills. In this case that would peg it at right about
8. (23 class skills / 3 = 7.blahblahblah)

>Expert: The guilder is not constrained by the maximum ranks as other
>classes are. The maximum ranks he may have in a given skill is
>equal to 3 + 1.5 times his level. Thus, at 2nd level his max ranks
>would be 6 instead of the usual 5. At 10th he could have 18 ranks,
>instead of 13. At 20th he could have 33 instead of 23. (This
>emulates the 2nd Ed guilder ability of having extra nonweapon
>proficiency slots.)

I`m thinking of just doing away with max ranks entirely, but that`s a
whole `nother screed.

>Silver Tongue: Constant dealing with others gives the guilder a keen
>sense of how to make them believe his lies. He may attempt a retry
>of the Bluff skill, but with a –5 penalty.
>
>Pidgin: Guilders have a knack for communicating despite barriers of
>an uncommon language. He can communicate and understand simple
>concepts, such as the need for food, desire to trade, warnings,
>etc. This works similar to the Decipher Script skill. The guilder
>makes a Pidgin check equal to d20 plus his Intelligence modifier
>plus his level. The DC varies with the complexity of information
>that is trying to be conveyed.

As for special abilities, I think there should be some effort to
differentiate the class not only from rogues, but to emphasize their
administrative/financial role at the domain level. That is, they
aren`t thieves... they steal from people licitly. Thus, things like
an ability to trade/purchase items, a long-standing relationship with
others. Maybe an income from what we might assume to be a sort of
medieval portfolio (the way certain D20 classes get a daily, weekly
or monthly stipend) might be in order.

G

[dalor]

I`ve found instances that would allow any of the core
classes in any of the regions of the Birthright
setting.

The Five Peaks region could easily spawn barbaric
humans. In fact, the northernmost province of
Mhoried, as found in a module, had highland type
people very similar to Scottish people; who were, for
all intents and purposes, still a barbarian people for
many centuries after they were "civilized" by the
English.

Barbaric desert tribes in Khinasi are easily made.

And etc...

I don`t think there is a region in Birthright that
can`t support any class you wish to play.

Just my two pence.


Anthony Edwards


--- "Birthright.net Message Boards"
<brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> I find that argument inconsistent with the rest of
> the setting- Many core classes are regional in
> Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the
> Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and
> Khinasi. The Brechts need one of their own. (And
> it fits well among the merchants of Khinasi too,
> anyways.)
>
> I like the idea of having regional base classes.
> There are pleanty of good base classes out there
> that could very well fit into a Birthright campaign.
> For Brechtur, it seems like the Swashbuckler and
> Scout classes are good fits, no?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[geeman]

At 06:07 PM 7/21/2006, Anthony Edwards wrote:

>I don`t think there is a region in Birthright that can`t support any
>class you wish to play.

I think that`s generally true given the way classes are now
described. It is a question, however, not so much of rationale as
general guidelines. There are plenty of exceptions to the rules in
the original BR materials. They are the ones that we might look at
as proving those "rules" as the old saying goes.

When it comes to this issue of "Brecht" guilders, I would suggest it
works exactly the same way. There are plenty of reasons why such a
class would exist in just about any other culture of Cerilia. (It
might push the limits a bit to imagine a gnoll or hill giant guilder,
but it could be done.) So, it`s just as appropriate as any other
"race based" class and for the same reasons. That is, having the
Brecht without guilders is like having the Vos or Rjurik without
barbarians, the Khinasi without magicians or elves without
wizards. It`s just appropriate to the culture--and fits a rather
important niche in the setting on the whole.

That said, the issue to me is not _if_ a guilder should be included
it`s _how_. I`ve seen several incarnations of such a class (not as
many as a noble, but still quite a few) and tried a few myself, but
none of them seem to really capture the concept very well. The
abilities of such a class are the problem. What special powers
should such a class have that are unique to commerce/trade/economics
and how do you make such special abilities _fun_? Moreover, I`m of
the opinion that all PC character classes should be playable at the
adventure level, which makes for another row to hoe.

I`d still really love to see a guilder that did all of the above,
though, so I`m all in favor of an effort to develop one.

Gary

[Danip]

Having already played a homebrew guilder in 3e and 3.5e, I thought I would chime in on this discussion. A discussion on a full guilder class here would probably be a help for future DMs and players.

The simple guilder my DM created was just the rogue with 2 more skill points per level. I know, not the most balanced or flavorful class. The character was a Brecht seafaring merchant type. So, eventually for roleplaying reasons he heavily multiclassed into Ranger for some nice Brecht style Two-weapon Fighting and some far-ranging explorer style wilderness skills. The rogue/ranger combo was a bit of a kludge as a "guilder". Everyone expected me to be a trapfinding thief, and an animal companion just clashed with his style.

As my attempt at a Guilder class, I've paged thru the various books I have and stolen a number of abilities from other classes and PrCs. I think to be playable at the adventure level, a guilder has to have some sort of combat style like the rogue has sneak-attack or the ranger has his two paths. Also to better differentiate from the rogue, I felt that dexterity, stealthy-ness, evasion, and such should be shunned in favor of more intelligence based abilities. Even a rotund lump can be a good Guilder if he keep his wits about him and knows when to strike. [and if you do have a great Dex, this multiclasses nicely with swashbuckler ;)]

Guilder
medium BAB [as cleric]
good will, good reflex, poor fort

skill points 8+int

1; bonus feat,Canny Defense
2; Guilder knack,Precise Strike +1d6
3; Skill focus
4; Break away, bonus feat
5; First special ability
6; Improved Reaction +2
7; intellectual agility, bonus feat
8; Elaborate Parry
9; Opportunist
10; Second special ability, bonus feat
11; Precise Strike +2d6
12; improved reaction +4, skill mastery
13; appraise magic value, bonus feat
14; shielded mind
15; find the path, Third special ability
16; merchant prince, bonus feat
17; ??

weapon and armour proficiencies; all simple weapons and rapier, longsword, short sword, shortbow, and scimitar. All light and medium armor and bucklers.

bonus feats;A guilder may select a bonus feat from the following; skill focus, combat expertise, iron will, lightning reflexes, improved initiative, quick draw, rapid reload, endurance, great fortitiude, improved aid another, leadership, expert tactician, jack of all trades, open minded, deft opportunist, persuasive, negotiator, nimble fingers, deft hands, alertness, diligent, investigator, stealthy, and [other BRCS ones]. must meet the prerequisites for the feat. [some of the above feats in complete adventurer]

Canny Defense; When not wearing armor or using a shield, a guilder adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per guilder class level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a guilder is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.

Guilder knack; For any skill check you can use 1/2 your guilder level [rounded up] in place of the number of ranks you have in the skill [even if that number is 0].
You cant take 10 with guilder knack. If the skill does not allow untrained checks, you must have at least 1 actual rank to attempt the check. [taken from phb2 p35, bardic knack]

Precise Strike (Ex);At 2nd level, a guilder gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed weapon, gaining an extra 1d6 damage added to her normal damage roll.

When making a precise strike, a guilder cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield. A gulder’s precise strike only works against living creatures with discernible anatomies. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to a precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from a precise strike. At 11th level, the extra damage on a precise strike increases to +2d6.

Break away; Skilled as he is, a guilder knows the sensibility of falling back from an unwinnable fight. starting at 4h level, he gains a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class in any round during which he does nothing but move.

Opportunist (Ex);Once per round, the guilder can make an attack of opportunity against an opponent who has just been struck for damage in melee by another character. This attack counts as the guilder’s attack of opportunity for that round. Even a guilder with the Combat Reflexes feat can’t use the opportunist ability more than once per round.

Intellectual agility; Starting at 7th level the guilder can channel her intellect to more physical needs. She adds her intelligence bonus to her initiative checks and reflex saves.

Elaborate Parry (Ex); A guilder knows when to protect the goods. At 8th level and higher, if a guilder chooses to fight defensively or use total defense in melee combat, she gains an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC for each two levels of guilder she has.

Improved Reaction (Ex);A guilder knows when to strike for best effect. At 6th level, a guilder gains a +2 bonus on initiative checks.
At 12th level, the bonus increases to +4. This bonus stacks with the benefit provided by the Improved Initiative feat

skill mastery; as the rogue ability

appraise magic value;You receive the benifits of the appraise magic value feat without need to meet its prerequisites. [if you know an object is magical, you can use the appraise skill to identify the item's properties. this use of the appraise skill requires 8 hours of uninterrupted work and consumes 25 gp worth of special materials. the DC of the appraise check is 10+ the caster level of the item.] from Complete Adventurer

Find the path; Having found fortunes all over Cerelia and out of a number of jams, a 15th level Guilder has an uncanny knack for knowing which way to go. Ability to cast find the past as a spell-like ability once per day.

merchant prince [pirate king];A 16th lvl guilder's exploits have become so ledgendary that great numbers of lackeys, lawyers, thugs, and bean-counters are willing to sign on as his crew for no compensation other than a chance to share in his next great haul. Treat this ability as the equivalent of the Leadership feat, except that only followers [and no cohorts] are gained. This is in addition to any followers gained thru the Leadership feat.

shielded mind; Crafty and difficult to read high level Guilders are. A conundrum to those that would magic them. Gains spell resistance against divination spells equal to 10+ her guilder level. This does not stack with other forms of spell resistance.

special ability; Havent quite figured these out.
The most simple would be something based on the ranger's favored enemy progression. Something like skill bonuses in a particular region or culture
[gather info in region/culture, k[local:region/culture] bonuses, and one other based on region/culture]
rjurik=survival
vos=intimidate
anuire=knowledge[nobility]
kinasi=knowledge[arcana]
brecthur=profession[merchant]
dwarven=craft[weaponsmith] or craft[armorsmith]
goblin=?
These bonuses would start at +2 and each time you picked a new region the old ones would gain another +2.

More complicated special abilities chosen from a list could also work. A ninja's poison use ability, a horizon walkers terrain masteries, skill mastery, or some psuedo-magical abilities [discern lies, find the path, identify, shielded mind] would allow customization.


[I]comments;
This is just a rough look at a guilder class. The intellegence backed combat style has a number of weak but nifty abilites lifted from the Duelist and other PrCs. But I didnt really find enough to fill up higher levels, so a rogue or fighter combatant would start to pull away even more.

Some might think that magical abilites would not suit the guilder or Cerelia. But I think a few choice, subtle abilties would help add to the mystique of the guilder class. This is rather influenced by my experience with the 2ndEd merchant class/kit? from Darokin in Greyhawk. Forget what they were called, but they would have you leaving trade negotiations muttering "what did i just agree to?!" Having picked up a few tricks from magicians, the Guilder is more than just an Expert with a few combat tricks. Given the low level of play of most people's BR, Id even consider lowering the level these abilities are gained at. Although a spellcasting progression like the paladin or ranger might be too much.

Bonus feat at first level to actually encourage dipping into Guilder instead of fighter or rogue. You want some skill points? A guilder level might fit more thematically than a backstabbing, trapfinding rogue.

And finally I dont really have a capping ability at 19th or 20th level to really make you want to stay in the Guilder class. A combination of my mid-level play of BR and a tendency towards rampant multiclassing...

[irdeggman]

Something missing to me seems to be the fact that the guilder class was originally a domain level of play class and not an adventuring one.

Using the 2nd ed Guilder and attempting to use that class for adventuring was, well, really a waste.

It appears what is happening here is that the important aspect domain level of play has been "removed" from the class and made a sort of mix of rogue/swashbuckler/scout IMO.

This seems to me to be going in the wrong direction.

If the class is redone then it should be focusing on what the original class was all about - economic domain actions.

[geeman]

At 04:39 AM 12/3/2006, irdeggman wrote:

>Something missing to me seems to be the fact that the guilder class
>was originally a domain level of play class and not an adventuring one.
>
>Using the 2nd ed Guilder and attempting to use that class for
>adventuring was, well, really a waste.

Is there really such a thing as a domain level character class? The
guilder was weak as a character class, but there was an effort to
make it more playable given things like its armor proficiency and
weapon choice. It certainly wasn`t "balanced" but neither was the
magician or many of the priestly character class changes in 2e. On
the whole, I don`t think the intention was really to create something
that was meant for the domain level rather than to portray a
character type that didn`t (isn`t?) really addressed within the
existing character classes.

A guilder should really be about money, but whether that`s at the
domain level or the adventure level isn`t particularly
definitive. Personally, I`d prefer something that was a kind of
combined diplomat/negotiator, tinkerer, financier. I guess another
way of looking at it is that a guilder class should be to earning
money what the fighting class is to doing battle. There should be
any number of ways of portraying a particular method of fighting (an
agile fencer to a burly slugger) and there should be any number of
ways of portraying how someone participates in business. Of course,
that`s not very "sexy" as an adventuring class, but its not any less
useful at the adventure level for the DM`s use.

Gayr

[Danip]

If the class is redone then it should be focusing on what the original class was all about - economic domain actions.

The trouble with that is that people play BR in three different ways;adventure level, domain level[esp. Pbems], and mixing those two. If you focus a class on economic domain actions the domain level RPGer's/wargamer's get a class that will probably own the rogue. But the adventure level players will see a useless homebody that will be weak to useless against monsters.

All the core classes generally arnt focused on domain actions, other than allotment of skill points and class skills. Thus I am inclined to repeat that with any new classes for Cerelia. With equal skill points to the rogue and class skills in all the guild skills, a Guilder should be equal to the rogue class at domain level. You will note I didnt give the Guilder bonus domain level feats or bonuses to domain checks. Just giving a guilder the rogue's economic skill set is enough to balance their domain level power. Then the trick is to create an interesting and playable adventurer. Some combat prowess and skill potential outside of urban area's is needed to make a character work for all play styles.

Also remember that many/most guilders arnt regents or even scions. The class should be a good model for that teaming mass of profit minded Brecht who arnt just Experts.

[Danip]

To comment on the idea's of the original post

Expert: The guilder is not constrained by the maximum ranks as other classes are. The maximum ranks he may have in a given skill is equal to 3 + 1.5 times his level. Thus, at 2nd level his max ranks would be 6 instead of the usual 5. At 10th he could have 18 ranks, instead of 13. At 20th he could have 33 instead of 23. (This emulates the 2nd Ed guilder ability of having extra nonweapon proficiency slots.) I'd have to repeat what others said and say this rubs me the wrong way. With 8 skill points a level a guilder will already be something of a skill showboat. But maximum ranks is something of a central tenet of 3e. Increasing max ranks doesnt really increase flexibility like extra proficiency slots, but it does up max power. Is there some need for a 10th level guilder to have a higher diplomacy check than a 10th level noble?

This sort of thing might work in a game, but perhaps it should be a house rule available to all classes in a game. Each player selects one skill where they up the max ranks. Their heroic specialty so to say. Maybe the guilder and rogue would get two skills to up, but I dont think this works as a class ability that just one player in a game will get.


Silver Tongue: Constant dealing with others gives the guilder a keen sense of how to make them believe his lies. He may attempt a retry of the Bluff skill, but with a –5 penalty.
A good ability, i like.


Pidgin: Guilders have a knack for communicating despite barriers of an uncommon language. He can communicate and understand simple concepts, such as the need for food, desire to trade, warnings, etc. This works similar to the Decipher Script skill. The guilder makes a Pidgin check equal to d20 plus his Intelligence modifier plus his level. The DC varies with the complexity of information that is trying to be conveyed.
Language barriers can be hard to roleplay. I forget what book I saw it in, but there was a Linguist feat that gave you bonus languages known. Might be a good simple bonus feat.



Improvised Tools: The guilder can select any two skills that require tools. With these two skills, the penalty for using improvised tools is halved. Is a guilder by default a crafter/tool user? An optional ability perhaps. And even if a guilder is going the crafter route, I would think they are more of a mastercrafter making expensive items than a MacGuyver. Perhaps, in line with Gary's 'guilders as money oriented' idea, at low level a guilder receives a free set of masterwork tools of their choice.

something like;
Journeyman's Tools; To best ply his trade a Guilder needs the right equipment. Whether it is a jewlers loop, a con man's trick cards, or just business attire, the right tools can mean a world of difference. At 2nd level a guilder receives a set of masterwork equipment for free. These masterwork items provide a +2 competence bonus to one skill when used. The skill must be selected from appraise, craft[any one], profession[any one], forgery?, or sleight of hand?. Typical items include crafting tools, a snappy courtier's outfit, a certified merchant's balance and weights, a set of chef's knives, or the finest compass money can buy.

[The Swordgaunt]

Change the expert ability to instead provide (say) a +2 competence bonus to 3 skills, with possibly the number of skills and the bonus increasing with level. (Or one could treat the progression similar to a ranger's favoured enemy).
[/list]

There's always the Skill Emphasis feat. It could be given as a bonus feat at intervals.

Otherwise, I'll playtest it (as an NPC) hopefully within the week.

[ConjurerDragon]

Danip schrieb:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3015
> Danip wrote:
>
...
> The simple guilder my DM created was just the rogue with 2 more skill points per level. I know, not the most balanced or flavorful class. The character was a Brecht seafaring merchant type. So, eventually for roleplaying reasons he heavily multiclassed into Ranger for some nice Brecht style Two-weapon Fighting and some far-ranging explorer style wilderness skills. The rogue/ranger combo was a bit of a kludge as a "guilder". Everyone expected me to be a trapfinding thief, and an animal companion just clashed with his style.
>
Wilderness skills? I remember a description of Brechts, from the Havens
of the Great Bay book (p. 15), in which the Brechts are described as
people who would rather sail with a boat around a peninsula than to
march across it even if it would take less time. And the same was said
about transporting goods in Brechtür. If that is the general attitude
then ranger levels as wilderness explorer seem off the general track.

> Canny Defense; When not wearing armor or using a shield, a guilder adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per guilder class level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a guilder is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.
>
As that resembles the 2E "Blackstrike" fighting shouldn?t it use that name?
> Elaborate Parry (Ex) At 8th level and higher, if a guilder chooses to fight defensively or use total defense in melee combat, she gains an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC for each two levels of guilder she has.
>
> appraise magic value;you receive the benifits of the appraise magic value feat without need to meet its prerequisites. [if you know an object is magical, you can use the appraise skill to identify the item`s properties. this use of the appraise skill requires 8 hours of uninterrupted work and consumes 25 gp worth of special materials. the DC of the appraise check is 10+ the caster level of the item.] Complete Adventurer
>
In Brechtür everything can be bought - even the service of a Magician. I
am wary of giving any class anything regarding magic in a setting that
is supposed to have much rarer magic than normal.
> More complicated special abilities chosen from a list could also work. A ninja`s poison use ability,
A Guilder is not a rogue. Actually the class was in Havens of the Great
Bay introduced as a counterpart to the rogue - a moneymaker who is not a
thief. I do not think that a Guilder should have an assasins or ninjas
poison use - at least not to poison weapons. Perhaps to poison a rivals
tea but not in an aggressive way like fighting with poisoned weapons.
> Some might think that magical abilites would not suit the guilder or Cerelia. But I think a few choice, subtle abilties would help add to the mystique of the guilder class. This is rather influenced by my experience with the 2ndEd merchant class/kit? from Darokin in Greyhawk. Forget what they were called, but they would have you leaving trade negotiations muttering "what did i just agree to?!" Having picked up a few tricks from magicians, the Guilder is more than just an Expert with a few combat tricks. Given the low level of play of most people`s BR, Id even consider lowering the level these abilities are gained at. Although a spellcasting progression like the paladin or ranger might be too much.
>
Then a spellcasting like the assasin - and having for example "Khinasi
Traders Tongue" as a spell.
bye
Michael

[kgauck]

I have several "domain" classes. They aren't just for domain turns, but are excellent for RP'ing domain actions and similar types of game events. I'll mention three examples. One is the Courtier, with social abilities and a broad range of administrative, intrigue, and social skills. Handy for the PC's chancellor, but weak enough in combat, that I generally recomend PC's stick with Noble. Another, of course, is the Guilder. Similar to the Courtier, but with skills and abilities better suited to the marketplace and guildhall then to the chancelry and court.

I still have an older version up at
http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/guilder.htm
but this version (which is basically the Scoundrel from Star Wars) is not my current version. I've elected to make Guilder a PrC with the assumption that the character has a background as a noble or rogue. For an example of where I am now in these kinds of things, see my noble class.
http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/aristocrat.htm

Noble makes a fine guilder, and I would design Anuirean and Rjurik guilders as being mostly Nobles. The Guilder PrC will be mostly for characters who don't expect much combat, and spend most of their time running their domain. Intrigue adventures, diplomacy, and the like. A domain based class. Its for players who want to grow their domains not the individual power of the character. Not every class has to suit every style of play.

[irdeggman]

I still think that if you ignore the domain level aspect you are doing this sort of "specialized" class a great injustice.

2nd ed guilder:


Required to have spent extensive time in the Great Bay area.

Thief attacks, saves and hit points

Proficient in any armor or weapon in Cerilia (note that this doesn’t change the availability of said items).

Read languages (as thief skill): 20% + 5%/level

No other thief skills.

Non weapon proficiencies like thief plus 1 per level.

Here is the big one:

+1 to 12 different domain actions.


There was also a note about DMs who award role-playing bonuses for individual success should award guilders who create or facilitate trade routes between guilds in which they have an interest. Now while “having an interest” is pretty vague – the only way to make a domain action roll was to either be a regent or a regent’s Lt. No one else could make a domain action roll in 2nd ed.


And since they were a rogue subclass that meant no character could take levels in guilder and another rogue class (like bard or thief).


Adding in things like precise attacks really seems to go against the focus of the class. They were never a "sneaky" combatant. They could better defend themselves than a thief could (due to better armor and weapons) but couldn't back stab and thus did less damage in general.

Adding in Speak Language as a class skill is something that is likewise missing. Pidgeon or not Speak Language is better (especially since it includes reading and writing the language).

[irdeggman]

Language barriers can be hard to roleplay. I forget what book I saw it in, but there was a Linguist feat that gave you bonus languages known. Might be a good simple bonus feat.


Its Master Linguist for Races of Eberon.

Prerequisitie: Speak at least 4 languages.

Benefit: Every level (including this one) gain an additional language (as if spending 1 sp on Speak Language).

Only problem is that it is not OGC.

[Fizz]

Guilders in 2nd Ed are difficult to emulate in 3E, just because of the skills mechanic. In 2nd Ed, Rogues (bards and thieves) didn't get excessive skill points. They had skill that were unique to them, and gained proficiencies as everyone else did. Guilders had the great advantage of a bonus proficiency slot at EVERY level.

Even though i was the one who started this thread, i do admit that a 3E guilder is difficult because of the rogue. Rogues work `ok' as guilders, but guilders shouldn't be the sneaky and backstabbing sort. 2nd Ed was quite clear that guilders didn't have most thief abilities.

So, maybe the best solution would be a variant rogue. Drop the sneaky skills, the backstabbing, the uber-reflexes, and replace with more interpersonal skills, domain-level bonuses, and a few of the other ideas throughout this thread.


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

So, maybe the best solution would be a variant rogue. Drop the sneaky skills, the backstabbing, the uber-reflexes, and replace with more interpersonal skills, domain-level bonuses, and a few of the other ideas throughout this thread.


-Fizz

That is probably closer fit.

It might even be better to make it a variant noble type.

Remember that nobles aren't necessarily born of royalty but more along the lines of born with a silver spoon in their mouth (e.g., lots of opportunites and "privilege"). Stripping away the combat oriented leadership stuff and keeping the general leadership things. Guilders should be "leaders" since they run or manage large enterprises. The were never the shop keepers but more along the line of "owner" of the chain of shops if you will.

[AndrewTall]

I saw the guilder as the co-ordinator behind the various merchants in a guild, linking those with ideas/skills to those with money and taking a cut, being the 'go-to' guy who can arrange the contract, etc.

This is in many ways similar to the noble's position in Anuire - they are the active members of the aristocracy who keep the system going, in Brecht the nobles are 'old money' rather than active 'players', so I would replace the noble with a Brecht variant to make the guilder as several others have noted.

Noble is quite a broad class really - swap the horse and sword for a schooner and a contract and you've pretty much got the guilder already.

Say swap the 'ride' skill and 'warcraft' for 'all profession/craft skills taken individually' as the guilder will be less focused on war-fare and riding is a noble pursuit (the Brecht equivalent to ride would probably be sailing - profession-sailor?) By adding all craft and all profession the guilder has tremendous breadth (even though none of these skills tend to have a substantial game impact) and gets the feel of 'super expert'.

Lose the 'born to lead', 'inspiring leader' and 'inspire loyalty' abilities as these as very much 'ruler of the realm' type abilities; replace them with, say a contact / spy ability or a +1 bonus to a domain action chosen from a list (i.e. create trade route / create holding / contest guild holding / rule guild holding / etc.) alternatively to +1 increase as more domain action bonus's are taken in a manner smilar to the ranger's favoured enemy bonus.

The downside with the domain action bonus is that guilder would then tend to be a regent-only PC, and the noble could, quite reasonably ask why they can't get similar abilities.

Otherwise: Drop hp from D8 to D6 but increase skills to 8+int (or higher if you don't mind the 'better than the rogue' issue).

[ploesch]

When I started reading the thread, my first thought was "we already have the guilder class in 3E" Then I realized I was thinking of the Noble. I think the Noble class works very well as a replacement for the Guilder class.

As stated above, if that isn't exactly what you want, then use a variant rogue, get rid the the inappropriate stuff, and add in more appropriate skills and bonuses.

[Fizz]

Remember that nobles aren't necessarily born of royalty but more along the lines of born with a silver spoon in their mouth (e.g., lots of opportunites and "privilege").

Actually, that's why i've shyed away from using the Noble- i don't see Guilders as necessarily being born in the upper class, or having privelages. One guilder may be born a pauper but trade/finagle his way up to a being a rich guild holder.

After all, the Brechts are about free enterprise. Nobility has the least social impact of any region of Cerilia.

-Fizz

[irdeggman]

After all, the Brechts are about free enterprise. Nobility has the least social impact of any region of Cerilia.

-Fizz

Ahh but having status and influence is the greatest there.

The power behind the throne as it is and having all those creature comforts.

I see great similarites to the Ferengi and always laugh and think in terms of the "Rules of Acquisition" as being a Brecht cornerstone.

So "Nobility" in the traditional sense doesn't work, but Nobility in the sense of the "nuveau rich" and "old money" most definitely does. The "haves" versus the "have nots" as it were. Social class is very important, albeit measured in terms of "wealth".

[Fizz]

Ahh but having status and influence is the greatest there.

The power behind the throne as it is and having all those creature comforts.

I see great similarites to the Ferengi and always laugh and think in terms of the "Rules of Acquisition" as being a Brecht cornerstone.

I love the Rules of Acquisition. Though i don't see the Brechts as being as inscrupulous as the Ferengi.


So "Nobility" in the traditional sense doesn't work, but Nobility in the sense of the "nuveau rich" and "old money" most definitely does. The "haves" versus the "have nots" as it were. Social class is very important, albeit measured in terms of "wealth".

I'm not saying guilders couldn't come from money. I just don't think that a guilder HAS to come from money. I also see guilders as more... hands-on... than a Noble. It's the guilder who goes out and makes the deals, finds new trade, etc. Nobles... well they're rich already- why should they do the legwork?

I can see the typical adventuring guilder as one who is out to MAKE his fortune. But maybe that's just my vision.


-Fizz

[kgauck]

By "nobility" many of us mean "ruling class", "elite", "movers and shakers" not neccesarily landed, knightly, warlords.

Consider that the elite of any societies will be the ones who rise up according to the social values of that people. Whatever you call it, there is going be a class for aquiring governing and leadership abilities and skills.

A pauper turned guilder seems terribly rare, perhaps almost more legend than reality. But, such a character would be a rogue who eventually started selecting those leadership skills and abilities. They might select a PrC like Kingpin, from Legends and Lairs' City Works. I must imagine that the new Cityscape book from Wizards will have merchant prince type character stuff inside. Few things are more exclusivly urban than the merchant prince.

My own Noble class is designed only for ruling, since its so easy to multi-class with fighter to make a warlord, or cleric to make a high priest.
http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/aristocrat.htm
I do use the noble class to represent wealth and privlidge with a PC's ability to lead and command a domain, and the aristcrat from the DMG for NPC wealth and privledge alone.

[irdeggman]

I see the "guilder" (as we are talking, a class that runs and manages a series of guilds and trade routes - things on the mega level not the "single shop" level) as an almost entry level class if coming from money and influence. If we are only talking about someone who operates at teh single shop level - then the expert NPC class fits the bill.

If they don't then it should be substantially harder to obtain that type of influence and an entry level class misses the mark, IMO. For this case a Prestige Class is probably more reflective of the "rewards" of the struggle to get there.

I don't know if that makes sense to anyone but me though.

[irdeggman]

Kenneth - I like that one.

The "masses" clearly decided that the core BRCS guilder should be more of a knightly one and I had to fight to ensure that it could still function as a guilder of sorts, although it still ended up with the military leadership slant.

[kgauck]

I have noticed a desire among some posters that classes be suitable for conventional adventuring. Its fun to go adventuring and seek the famed Sails of Captain Luetenhaven with their amazing ability to aid the speed, navigation, and sea-worthiness of a ship. But, some guilders never adventure. They may be your arch-rival who focuses entirely on his realm, rather than his own personal prowess, or he may be your stay-at-home lieutenant who watches the shop while you're out seeking the Rudder of the Shoals or doing climactic battle with the Vampire.

With the ease of multi-classing, each character can easily find the happy blend of adventuring classes and domain focused classes that best suits their own character concept. There is no shortage of Brecht (or otherwise) combat classes.

Heinrick von Lausruef might opt to go with Noble 3/Swashbucker5/Guilder 4 while his archrival Johann van der Leipzur might be Noble 5/Guilder 7. Heinrick would be the more adventuring character, and some players would prefer it. PBeM'ers or PC rivals, a PC's day-to-day operations guy, or even the PC himself might want to focus totally on his realm, his domain actions, and his organization, and want the skills and abilities to do that rather than make every class more or less balanced for combat.

[Fizz]

Havens of the Great Bay says:

"In Cerilia, the guilder also represents a new social class: the middle class. Guilders can be nobles or commoners, but they generally fall into the middle layers of income."

Further...

"Many Brechts become guilders in careers as sailors, merchants, farmers, and more."

This is completely at odds with the notion that guilders are born into money, or are only of the elitist class. Indeed, it's the exact opposite. Even the lowliest beggar could be crafty and work his way to great wealth.


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

In 2nd ed there was also no rogue class they were "thieves".

There was also nothing like Prestige Classes - kits (the closest thing) had to be taken at first level.

I said that the noble (those born to privelige) should have a quicker route to become the master trader. Those that struggled to become that would best fall under the realm of a prestige class.

So there are 2 paths to get there:

One via noble (those with a head above the others)

and the other a Prestige Class that characters have to earn their way to.

To best capture what you seem to be looking for a Prestige Class is probably best. The noble would most likely have the quickest path to it.



Even the lowliest beggar could be crafty and work his way to great wealth.

This concept reflects, IMO, the idea of a Prestige Class. Something you work towards not something you start with.



"Many Brechts become guilders in careers as sailors, merchants, farmers, and more."

To continue this paragraph:

"Unblooded guilders tend to progress within established guilds and become lieutenants, sea captains, and trade emissaries. Blooded guilders may work to become regents of their own guilds and strive to establish thier personal and regency power in the thriving merchantile lands around the Great Bay."

This still falls in line with my point about the domain level focus of teh class.

[irdeggman]

It should also be noted that in 2nd ed a non-regent guilder could at best generate 6d4 x 10 gp per ply trade action. That is once a month thye coould generate that amount of income. Assuming it was an excellent trade (e.g. major merchant).

Only regents could perform domain actions (ply trade was a character action). They would have to gain any other income from advneturing (which really doesn't reflect the core concept of being a guilder at all IMO).

[Fizz]

In 2nd ed there was also no rogue class they were "thieves".


True, but let's face it - rogues are essentially thieves. They're sneaky, they're backstabbing, they're uber-reflexive. They don't fit the classic concept of the guilder.


I said that the noble (those born to privelige) should have a quicker route to become the master trader. Those that struggled to become that would best fall under the realm of a prestige class.

But you did say that Guilders are best made through the Noble class. But the Noble class is the class of privelige. My point was that guilders should not have that requirement.



"Unblooded guilders tend to progress within established guilds and become lieutenants, sea captains, and trade emissaries. Blooded guilders may work to become regents of their own guilds and strive to establish thier personal and regency power in the thriving merchantile lands around the Great Bay."


Yes, and this doesn't change anything. What's said there is the same as for any class in Birthright.

For example, fighters can be rich or poor, and they can become lieutenants or work to become regents (if blooded) too. Yet, you don't need a prestige class for the pauper fighter to become a regent.

So why should it be different for the guilder? Why can't a single core class guilder (rogue variant) be able to advance his way to guild-leader?


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

True, but let's face it - rogues are essentially thieves. They're sneaky, they're backstabbing, they're uber-reflexive. They don't fit the classic concept of the guilder.

I have had many many player run the "I'm not that type of rogue" character. They instead of focusing on the sneaky aspects focus on the skill aspects. I think someone already brought this point up earlier too.



But you did say that Guilders are best made through the Noble class. But the Noble class is the class of privelige. My point was that guilders should not have that requirement.

"Best" is not a requirement. Best means the easiest and quickest way to get there.




Yes, and this doesn't change anything. What's said there is the same as for any class in Birthright.

For example, fighters can be rich or poor, and they can become lieutenants or work to become regents (if blooded) too. Yet, you don't need a prestige class for the pauper fighter to become a regent.

Never said you "needed" a prestige class to become a regent did I? If I implied that I am sorry that wasn't my intent.

In 2nd ed the guilder had that specific text that was very much tied into domain levela ctions. They are also the only class to be given bonuses for domain level action in 2nd ed and specifically called out to be given role-playing awards for executing said domain level actions. So the very class was oriented around the domain level of play, unlike the other classes.


So why should it be different for the guilder? Why can't a single core class guilder (rogue variant) be able to advance his way to guild-leader?

Again, you are painting a Prestige Class. Something "Guild Master" that reflects the power and authority gained by years of work and training.

Everything you have pointed out here and say you want ends up defining a Prestige Class.

A noble would have the quickest path to this one.

A commoner would go through the Expert NPC class.

Or you could do a rogue (variant).

All paths would end up in the same place - the Guild Master.

I still think the end in mind is a class that is the master of major economics. A guild Master, a merchant Prince, a fleet admiral, something that is greater the the normal merchant.

[Fizz]

"Best" is not a requirement. Best means the easiest and quickest way to get there.

OK, so are you saying that the `best' way for any character to become a regent is to be of the Noble class?

If so, then that's fine. I was getting the impression that you thought it was the best way ONLY for guilders. That the Noble class would not be the best way for a fighter, priest, etc.


In 2nd ed the guilder had that specific text that was very much tied into domain levela ctions. They are also the only class to be given bonuses for domain level action in 2nd ed and specifically called out to be given role-playing awards for executing said domain level actions. So the very class was oriented around the domain level of play, unlike the other classes.

It has that text yes, but it's also very specific that guilders should be considered adventurers just like anyone else.

Also, the mechanics for 3E are different too. In the BRCS domain action checks are based on skills, not class. The guilder should have the appropriate skills as class skills, and not worry about the class bonus 2nd Ed gave them.


Everything you have pointed out here and say you want ends up defining a Prestige Class.

Hmmm. That's not what i'm envisioning. At least, not any more than any other class. That is to say- i don't think the guilder should have any more difficulty working his way to regent than any other class. I don't think the guilder needs any rules or conditions that wouldn't also apply to other classes. Does that make sense?


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

OK, so are you saying that the `best' way for any character to become a regent is to be of the Noble class?


Hmmm. That's not what i'm envisioning. At least, not any more than any other class. That is to say- i don't think the guilder should have any more difficulty working his way to regent than any other class. I don't think the guilder needs any rules or conditions that wouldn't also apply to other classes. Does that make sense?


-Fizz

We seem to be missing each other here.

A character can be regent without being a noble.

A noble will make the best regent, as far as Realm Management goes.

A noble also has the skill selection (and skill points) to give him a leg up on being a regent of any type (except the spell caster ones, but even there he can get the necessary skills to higher ranks quicker than most).

A Guild Master, IMO, is not just a regent he is a regent who is especially good at the domain level economics. That was what I was trying to get to.

2nd ed said they were to be used as adventurers, but most have seen that they were much more focused at the domain level. Magicians in 2nd ed were supposed to be a decent adventuring class too - both failed in comparison to every other class.

Magicians were just too weak and guilders were too focused on domain actions. For adventuring it was far better to play a thief or a bard than a guilder. A guilder didn't really have anything that he could do adventure-wise. He had better armor and weapons than a thief, but didn't have any of the combat or stealth abilities. He had better interaction capabilites than a thief, but nowhere as good as a bard and no spell capability.

So capturing that in 3.5 seems kind of counterproductive to me. Whereas capturing the domain level command of economics seems to be something interesting and very reflective of the Brecht culture.

[dalor]

I removed the entire problem by realizing that ANYONE
can be a guilder. I`ve had Fighters become
guild-masters and rule guild holdings. I simply
removed the "class requirement" from the different
types of holdings...even source holdings simply
because:

Anyone with the "Blood of the Gods" could make a
connection with the "Land" or whatever other force
allows the collection of regency.

The reason I did this is that I had players constantly
debating "Why can`t my Fighter collect regency from a
guild holding when he puts the time and effort into
running the business?"

I tried explaining it took certain skills to do it
"the right way" but he explained (and justly so) that
his fighter had a high INT and high CHA as well; so he
didn`t think his fighter was not capable of running a
business.

So I said: "Ok...no class requirements for collecting
regency...but if someone out "skills" you, I don`t
want to hear complaining!"

Worked out pretty good.


Anthony Edwards



__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index

[Fizz]

We seem to be missing each other here.

A character can be regent without being a noble.


OK, yes. Understood that.


A noble will make the best regent, as far as Realm Management goes.

A noble also has the skill selection (and skill points) to give him a leg up on being a regent of any type (except the spell caster ones, but even there he can get the necessary skills to higher ranks quicker than most).

This is where i was not sure of what you were saying. I thought you were saying Nobles were better than specifically the variant rogue guilder class, but that Nobles were not better than any other class.

Thus, i thought you were being very harsh on the guilder class.

But in actuality, you're blanketted all classes, saying the Noble is better for regency than ANY class. I understand your meaning now.


A Guild Master, IMO, is not just a regent he is a regent who is especially good at the domain level economics. That was what I was trying to get to.

By extension then, if there is a GuildMaster PrC, there should also be a `Warlord', `High Priest', and `Source Mage' prestige classes. A specialty prestige class for each holding. (Or possibly more if you sub-divide those up.)


Magicians were just too weak and guilders were too focused on domain actions. For adventuring it was far better to play a thief or a bard than a guilder. A guilder didn't really have anything that he could do adventure-wise. He had better armor and weapons than a thief, but didn't have any of the combat or stealth abilities. He had better interaction capabilites than a thief, but nowhere as good as a bard and no spell capability.

I never thought of guilders that way though- those extra proficiency slots could be really useful if you used them the right way. Guess it depends on how big a role proficiencies played in your particular campaign. (As a side note, imc rangers and bards do not cast spells at all. So the magician, with a couple tweaks, becomes quite a relevant class.)


So capturing that in 3.5 seems kind of counterproductive to me. Whereas capturing the domain level command of economics seems to be something interesting and very reflective of the Brecht culture.

OK, i see your point in this. I guess we're going about trying to capture different sides of the class. I've been thinking along the lines of a skilled-adventuring-expert, while you've been focusing on the regency-domain-actions side.


-Fizz

[kgauck]

Middle class doesn not mean mid-level wealth. Indeed, anyone who can count quickly realizies that a guy who owns guild holdings and trade routes makes more money than a guy who owns provinces. This was also true of the rennaissance in Europe, where bankrupt nobles sought marriages with the rising and wealthier merchant families.

Secondly, why is it not natural and normal for wealth to beget wealth? Why should it not be the case that the children of the guilders are indeed the guilders of the next generation?

Sure just as an Anuirian of obscure origin might win fame on the battlefield, rise to a knighthood, and perhaps even a lordship, once in a great while (like when we talk about those exceptional people, PC's) some blooded young fellow might win a handsome stake at dice when Lady Luck smiled on him, and parlay it into a ship of his own, wherin he takes cargos to foriegn shores and earns remarkable profits. Over time such a figure might aquire a fleet of ships and even some holdings in two key ports.

To say these things are possible is not to say that its far more common for the the son of a guilder (or even a landed gentleman) to seek his fortune in trade. He may succeed his father's holdings, or start a new trade domain. But the class that best describes him is one that would give him some learned background in how to run a trade domain.

Finally the rogue is not just a theif, or even primarily a thief (if by thief what you mean is pickpocket, burglar, or bandit), certainly the merchant has always had the reputation of a theif if you mean someone who reprents inferior goods as high quality, who uses false weights to balance coins paid to him, who shaves coins in his posession, who lies, cheats, and otherwise steals. Consdier that seasonal favorite, Ebenezer Scrooge, who was quite honest, but still despised. I saw Harry Potter II on cable this weekend, and when the old merchant is pawning some of the senior Malfoy's goods, when the blonde fellow turns to reprimand his son, he steals back some of the coins he paid for Manfoy's goods. I don't think that the guilders are so terribly un-rogue like. Slight of Hand, Bluff, Appraise, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Forgery, Gather Information, Sense Motive all are useful to the Guilder, and all are Rogue skills.

[kgauck]

By extension then, if there is a GuildMaster PrC, there should also be a `Warlord', `High Priest', and `Source Mage' prestige classes. A specialty prestige class for each holding. (Or possibly more if you sub-divide those up.)

I think classes like warlord, high priest, and even source mage are more pretty common in the Complete source books. You can find classes that allow you to direct and maintain large barbarian hordes, give morale bonuses to your armies within sight and sound of your voice, cultivate a loyal following, collect additional followers of your class type, and do other things that already suit the domian leader of the various domain types. Certainly they could be enhanced to give them a more BR flavor, but the basics are there. For Guilder, I have seen the Kingpin in City Works which is very much a theives guild type of guilder, but quite good. I expect Cityscape will have a class or two that helps, but for the most part, a good Guilder class has been missing, where warlord, high priest, and ley line using arcanists are out there.

[irdeggman]

I think classes like warlord, high priest, and even source mage are more pretty common in the Complete source books. You can find classes that allow you to direct and maintain large barbarian hordes, give morale bonuses to your armies within sight and sound of your voice, cultivate a loyal following, collect additional followers of your class type, and do other things that already suit the domian leader of the various domain types. Certainly they could be enhanced to give them a more BR flavor, but the basics are there. For Guilder, I have seen the Kingpin in City Works which is very much a theives guild type of guilder, but quite good. I expect Cityscape will have a class or two that helps, but for the most part, a good Guilder class has been missing, where warlord, high priest, and ley line using arcanists are out there.


I agree with this.

Cityscape is a good book. It doesn't, however capture city-based classes or prestige classes. It does give a lot of information on how to structure cities. Districts, politics, houses, guilds, organizations and the like. It also introduces the concept of contacts in a bit of detail (and some feats to modify it).

It also defines "social classes".

Lower class: the relatively poor.

Middle class: representing those who are doing reasonably well for themselves, but still hold little true wealth or power.

Upper class: royalty, nobility, and those so powerfully wealthy that they are capable of influencing the course of society.

But there hasn't been anything that really focuses on a class that is akin to the guilder. IMO it is because the guilder was designed to be bigger than someone who runs a shop (again the domain level of play) and D&D just doesn't recognize that level at all.

[Fizz]

Secondly, why is it not natural and normal for wealth to beget wealth? Why should it not be the case that the children of the guilders are indeed the guilders of the next generation?

I'm not saying it can't be. But the description of the guilder in Havens was quite clear that guilders can be of any social or wealth class. Indeed, it says MOST guilders are of the middle class. These are people who do work for a living (sailor, merchant, etc).

"... they generally fall into the middle layers of income (in that incredibly wide gap between royalty and peasant landowners)."


Sure just as an Anuirian of obscure origin might win fame on the battlefield, rise to a knighthood, and perhaps even a lordship, once in a great while (like when we talk about those exceptional people, PC's) some blooded young fellow might win a handsome stake at dice when Lady Luck smiled on him, and parlay it into a ship of his own, wherin he takes cargos to foriegn shores and earns remarkable profits. Over time such a figure might aquire a fleet of ships and even some holdings in two key ports.

Which is kind of the point of a PC isn't it? Don't most PC's want to earn fame/fortune/power? I don't know many PC's who stay home not wanting to do any great deeds. Most NPC guilders, just like most NPC fighters, won't achieve this level of greatness. But it's got to be very possible for a PC character.


I don't think that the guilders are so terribly un-rogue like. Slight of Hand, Bluff, Appraise, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Forgery, Gather Information, Sense Motive all are useful to the Guilder, and all are Rogue skills.

In 2nd Ed, the guilder was a member of the Rogue group, just like the thief. but Havens is very deliberate in saying that guilders do not get any thief abilities, other than Read Languages. So all of the stealthy aspects of the 3E Rogue, such as Hiding, Moving Silently, Sneak Attacking, Dodging, are all entirely inappropriate to the guilder (assuming you want to keep the same flavor of the 2nd Ed guilder).

And for the record, a 2nd Ed thief class didn't have to be a `thief' either. :)


-Fizz

[Fizz]

kgauck-
I notice your site also has a core Guilder class. Do you use this class in your campaign?

http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/guilder.htm


-Fizz

[Danip]

I think classes like warlord, high priest, and even source mage are more pretty common in the Complete source books. You can find classes that allow you to direct and maintain large barbarian hordes, give morale bonuses to your armies within sight and sound of your voice, cultivate a loyal following, collect additional followers of your class type, and do other things that already suit the domian leader of the various domain types. Certainly they could be enhanced to give them a more BR flavor, but the basics are there.

I agree there are already great ways to model a warlord, high priest, or uber mage in the various WotC sources. But I note, none of these are focused on domain level play at expense of being able to function in an typical D&D adventure style. I guess what I am looking to help others build is a guilder class which would fit in nicely with these other WotC 3e classes and PrCs.

Certainly, any DM can create a class which ignores monster fighting or hands out domain level bonuses. Decreasing personal power in exchange for domain power could be a fun and interesting option. But is a domain focused path open to all of your players? If only players who are running guild holdings have a class with that choice, your other players might feel a lack of temple or law specialists. You might consider a suite of classes designed for all BR regents to specialize. [Perhaps beyond the scope of this discussion...]

As we are just having a friendly brainstorm here, and not looking to make something "official" for the BRCS, I think we can discuss two different types of guilder classes. One, a standard WotC-style adventuring class who would fit nicely into any Complete Hero book, be mechanically on par with a rogue running a Guild, but have better flavor. Another, that tries to capture a guild domain focused regent, who trades combat and dungeon prowess for more domain power than a rogue or cleric. Perhaps, for labeling purposes call the first the [Complete] Guilder class and the latter a [Regent] Guilder class.

As may be obvious, I would prefer the Complete Guilder to be available for all the campaigns I've ever played. The BR campaigns I have played in have tended to be at either extreme of playing styles. In the campaign where I am a rogue/ranger 'guilder', I dont think I've ever made a domain action check! And in the several Pbems Ive played, I think a guilder with domain bonuses would just replace the rogue, as those games tend to ignore adventuring/monster fighting and most players min/max for domain rule.

Either way, I think we can all agree that 2e wasnt the paragon of balanced classes [see BR magician]. Whether we are helping BR fans who come to the site by kludging together a Complete Guilder or a Regent Guilder, the 2e Guilder need not be our arbiter of balance, just flavor.

[irdeggman]

In 2nd Ed, the guilder was a member of the Rogue group, just like the thief. but Havens is very deliberate in saying that guilders do not get any thief abilities, other than Read Languages. So all of the stealthy aspects of the 3E Rogue, such as Hiding, Moving Silently, Sneak Attacking, Dodging, are all entirely inappropriate to the guilder (assuming you want to keep the same flavor of the 2nd Ed guilder).

And for the record, a 2nd Ed thief class didn't have to be a `thief' either. :)


-Fizz

yeah but the percentages that they had to apply (with a limit to how much each could be applied per level) forced them to be thief like.

And in 3.5 they can apply their skill points to cross class skills instead (since they have so many now) as well as to class skills that definitely fit the guilder theme (like Appraise*, Balance (for those sea faring ones), Bluff*, Craft* , Deceipher Script, Diplomacy*, Disguise, Forgery, Gather Information*, Intimidate*, Knowledge (local), Listen (for eavesdropping), Profession*, Sense Motive*), * are key RP collection skills for guilds.

Just because a skill is on their list doesn't mean it gets taken, most rogues don't take ranks in all of their current class skills anyway - they focus on a few that they are realy good at.

Now the biggest one missing would be Speak Language and that belongs with the guilder theme, but again with the large amoutn of sp that a rogue gets and assuming the PC is beign kept true to the "theme" there are plenty left for cross-class skills in Speak Language.

[dalor]

The only thing I`ve seen that comes close to showing
how to put together entire trade networks in D&D is
taken from two seperate books:

Dungeon Master`s Guide II

and

Power of Faerun (where there is a Merchant Prince
Prestige Class)

Anthony Edwards


--- irdeggman <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
> But there hasn`t been anything that really focuses
> on a class that is akin to the guilder. IMO it is
> because the guilder was designed to be bigger than
> someone who runs a shop (again the domain level of
> play) and D&D just doesn`t recognize that level at
> all.




__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

[Fizz]

yeah but the percentages that they had to apply (with a limit to how much each could be applied per level) forced them to be thief like.

Oh, don't get me wrong, the 3E rogue has much more flexibility than the 2nd Ed Thief. But they're still stuck with Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, etc. All of those build up the uber-nimble character archetype, and are all decidedly un-guilderish.


Now the biggest one missing would be Speak Language and that belongs with the guilder theme, but again with the large amoutn of sp that a rogue gets and assuming the PC is beign kept true to the "theme" there are plenty left for cross-class skills in Speak Language.

Right, but if you leave it as cross-class, then one who wants to be a language specialist effectively loses half their skill points.

This is why i think the variant is the way to go. Take the rogue. Drop the sneak attack, dodge, evasion, and all the sneaky skills. Replace with some other appropriate skills, and some of the special abilities that have been suggested here, maybe a bonus Skill Focus feat here and there. It'd be a perfectly playable class, and be very distinct from the rogue.

(I'd also give the Guilder 10 skill points, but i've heard people say that goes against 3E- never understood why. But that's another debate...)


-Fizz

[cvgawde]

"I removed the entire problem by realizing that ANYONE
can be a guilder. I`ve had Fighters become
guild-masters and rule guild holdings."

Exactly, the "guilder" is really a concept more than something that can be quantified into one class. Anyone can be a guilder, regardless of class, by focusing their skills and feats on domain gain and perhaps financial expertise.

[Danip]

>
Wilderness skills? I remember a description of Brechts, from the Havens
of the Great Bay book (p. 15), in which the Brechts are described as
people who would rather sail with a boat around a peninsula than to
march across it even if it would take less time. And the same was said
about transporting goods in Brechtür. If that is the general attitude
then ranger levels as wilderness explorer seem off the general track.
Sailing about is all good [max ranks prof[sailor]:D], but eventually you hit land.[usually because the DM and other players arnt such huge nautical buffs :D] I found a bit of wilderness skills let me be a bit of a trailblazing merchant, out finding new markets. While clambering around the Harpy's isle, a mixture of appraise, k[nature], and prof[merchant] help me identify a rare herb that grew abundantly there. Of course, negotiations with the Harpy were tricky, but they helped spawn some RP and adventure hooks. Granted, rogue/ranger was my crude attempt to be a 'guilder' not a 'thief'. Wilderness skills shouldnt be the focus of all guilders, of course. But for the Marco Polos and caravan leaders of the world survival, handle animal, and k[nature[ can be a good skills.

For this kind of situation I like the idea that the guilder have a few extra selection of class skills. Even just two extra class skills the player chooses would help make varied and specialized guilders possible.



> Canny Defense; When not wearing armor or using a shield, a guilder adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per guilder class level to her Dexterity bonus to modify Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a guilder is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.
>
As that resembles the 2E "Blackstrike" fighting shouldn?t it use that name?
I left in the original names for the abilities, so people could see the sources I drew from.


> appraise magic value;you receive the benifits of the appraise magic value feat without need to meet its prerequisites. [if you know an object is magical, you can use the appraise skill to identify the item`s properties. this use of the appraise skill requires 8 hours of uninterrupted work and consumes 25 gp worth of special materials. the DC of the appraise check is 10+ the caster level of the item.] Complete Adventurer
>
In Brechtür everything can be bought - even the service of a Magician. I
am wary of giving any class anything regarding magic in a setting that
is supposed to have much rarer magic than normal.
This idea was a bit of a roleplaying inspired one. A high-level guilder wouldnt have to be dependent upon the parties spellcasters to identify the properties of a magic item. This ability kicks in at 13th level, so you are one of the highest level guilders in Cerelia. And by that level you have seen quite a few magic items, even in low/rare magic cerelia. Realistically this is quite a weak ability. Mostly added to say "you are a master of selling and buying items, even magic items, your appraise kicks butt". Really, appraise needs all the help it can get.


> More complicated special abilities chosen from a list could also work. A ninja`s poison use ability,
A Guilder is not a rogue. Actually the class was in Havens of the Great
Bay introduced as a counterpart to the rogue - a moneymaker who is not a
thief. I do not think that a Guilder should have an assasins or ninjas
poison use - at least not to poison weapons. Perhaps to poison a rivals
tea but not in an aggressive way like fighting with poisoned weapons.

I dont think every guilder should have poison related abilities. But some Guilders, particularly dirty-fighting villian types, seem likely posion users. Granted, poisoning weapons seems less suited than ingested or trap poisons. But the poison mechanic in D&D is a bit weak/rarely used... Perhaps for a Regent Guilder class, an optional +1 on domain actions involving poison [espionage to poison enemy, etc]...


Then a spellcasting like the assasin - and having for example "Khinasi
Traders Tongue" as a spell. maybe. Not very certain on the magical abilities of a complete guilder;what, what power, what levels gained at... Im thinking a few potent abilities at high [12+] levels. If a player wants a number of weaker spells, multiclassing into magician seems the way to go. But a straight guilder build would tend to get outclassed in his own specialty by spellcasters at higher levels. The reality altering abilities of high level casters can make your negotiating skills seem paltry. Mental defense is a must, at least.

[kgauck]

kgauck-
I notice your site also has a core Guilder class. Do you use this class in your campaign?

http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/guilder.htm


-Fizz

Yes, but previously all players were fighter types or priestsly types. That class was basically a quick way to build Brecht NPC's. Its got good fundamentals, but I don't know that I'll be using it again in my current campaign. I may re-name it Merchant and make a PrC guilder.

[kgauck]

{T}he description of the guilder in Havens was quite clear that guilders can be of any social or wealth class. Indeed, it says MOST guilders are of the middle class. These are people who do work for a living (sailor, merchant, etc).

Middle class people don't work for a living, that's the working class. The middle class are the people who own the businesses that hire the workers.

A bunch of fishermen and blacksmiths are not going to rise up and occupy a place in society greater than the land-owning nobilty. Super-rich merchants can and do. As I have mentioned, the richest players are the guilders with trade routes. They are not between peasants and royalty, they are richer than royalty.



Don't most PC's want to earn fame/fortune/power? I don't know many PC's who stay home not wanting to do any great deeds. Most NPC guilders, just like most NPC fighters, won't achieve this level of greatness. But it's got to be very possible for a PC character.

Not everyone sees the character is the locus of play. Some see the realm itself as the locus of play. Great characters are not always the goal, some players seek great realms. For that reason alone there should be PC classes with all the goodies of a PC class. The fact that it makes for

Good Rivals, whose realms are tougher to mess with because are better at the business of realms than your PC who has aquired personal greatness at the expence of domain leadership.
Good Lieutenants, who run the day to day affairs of whatever you do, while you go off slaying abominations
A good way for my adventuring PC to get some domain goodness without requiring me or the DM to craft a class that fits the balance between adventures and domains that I envision.
... is just gravy.


In 2nd Ed, the guilder was a member of the Rogue group, just like the thief. but Havens is very deliberate in saying that guilders do not get any thief abilities, other than Read Languages. So all of the stealthy aspects of the 3E Rogue, such as Hiding, Moving Silently, Sneak Attacking, Dodging, are all entirely inappropriate to the guilder (assuming you want to keep the same flavor of the 2nd Ed guilder).

And for the record, a 2nd Ed thief class didn't have to be a `thief' either. :)
-Fizz

Arguing that the rogue offers things that the guilder won't want to spend skill points on is like arguing that the Fighter class should be abolished in favor of a seperate class for every fighting style. After all the Archer character has no need for Power Attack, Mounted Combat, or Two Weapon Fighting. After all, he wants Point Blank Shot and Far Shot. Well, just as I can craft a very credible Archer by simply chosing the feats that make an archer and simply not buying the feats that make other kinds of fighters, a rogue can buy the skills a guilder needs, and simply not buy the sneaky ones.

That leaves us asking, is the existence of Sneak Attack sufficient to leave the Rogue entirely inappropriate for Guilders? Evasion and Uncanny Dodge seem perfectly appropriate to me (notice I included the Uncanny Dodge progression in my own Guilder class). I'm certainly not bothered by the idea that guilders would prefer an unfair fight to a stand up duel. If the rogue PrC'd into Guilder, Kingpin, or Merchant Prince, the sneak attack would be a minor ability, rather than the signature ability of a pure rogue.

Finally, I think most DM's would approve that a young rogue hoping to be a guilder could swap all his sneak attacks for skill based feats like Persuasive, Negotiator, Deceitful, Diligent, Investigator, or whatever.

[Fizz]

Middle class people don't work for a living, that's the working class. The middle class are the people who own the businesses that hire the workers.

Your position is not supported by Havens. According to it, the middle class DOES work. It says guilders work as sailors, as merchants, as farmers, etc.


A bunch of fishermen and blacksmiths are not going to rise up and occupy a place in society greater than the land-owning nobilty. Super-rich merchants can and do. As I have mentioned, the richest players are the guilders with trade routes. They are not between peasants and royalty, they are richer than royalty.

I didn't say a bunch of fishermen and blacksmiths would overthrow the nobility- didn't mean to imply that at all. Having a skill does not make you a guilder. "Only adventurous people of a certain mettle can become guilders."

On top of that, just like not every fighter will command an army or hold power, not every guilder will be super-rich.

Some guilders will be super-rich. But that doesn't mean they started that way. Class has little meaning in Brechtur. Money is the driving force in Brechtur. The rags-to-riches story is the Brecht dream. Someone who can do that ought to command a lot of respect and influence- they know how to turn a profit.


Arguing that the rogue offers things that the guilder won't want to spend skill points on is like arguing that the Fighter class should be abolished in favor of a seperate class for every fighting style.

This is about class philosophy.

The DMG gives guidelines for creating variant classes, in exactly the way i described earlier. The DMG gives an example of an Undead Slayer, built off of a ranger.

So by your logic, the DMG should not be advising players this way, since one could create a perfectly good Undead Slayer character with a standard ranger.

You could continue that line of thought, continually generalizing, until you're left with only 4 core classes- warrior, arcane, divine, expert. (Much like True20.) Where do you draw the line and decide `yes, this is worthy of a new class'?

IMO, the guilder qualifies because it brings a lot of flavor to the setting, and is such a driving force of Brecht society. I think there are enough new abilities discussed here that make a working and enjoyable core class.

Besides, Rjurik has druids, Anuire and Khinasi have paladins, Vosgaard has barbarians. The Brecht need something of their own too.


Finally, I think most DM's would approve that a young rogue hoping to be a guilder could swap all his sneak attacks for skill based feats like Persuasive, Negotiator, Deceitful, Diligent, Investigator, or whatever.

See? Right there you've got yourself a variant class. :)


-Fizz

[Danip]

Okay, trial two,
----------------------------------------------
[Complete] Guilder
medium BAB
good will, poor reflex, poor fortitude

Hit Die: d6

Class Skills;Administrate (Wis), Appraise (Int), Balance (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Forgery (Int), Gamble (Wis)??, Gather Information (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (local), Knowledge (nobility and royalty), Knowledge (history), Knowledge (Architecture and engineering), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Speak Language (Int), Spot(Wis), Use Rope (Dex).

Skill Points- 8 + Int bonus.

1 Bonus feat, Canny Defense, Been There Done That
2 Journeyman's Tools, Precise Strike +1d6
3 Bonus feat
4 Been There Done That, Break away
5 1st Favored Market
6 Guilder Knack
7 Bonus feat, Intellectual Agility
8 Silver Tongue
9 Been There Done That, Opportunist
10 2nd Favored Market
11 Bonus feat, Precise Strike +2d6
12 Elaborate Parry
13 Appraise Magic Value, Shielded Mind
14 Been There Done That
15 3rd Favored Market, Bonus feat
16 Skill Mastery
17 Merchant Prince
18
19 Bonus feat
20 4th Favored Market Precise Strike +3d6

Weapon and Armour Proficiencies: All simple weapons and all light and one-handed martial weapons. All light and medium armor and bucklers.

Bonus Feats; A guilder receives a bonus feat at x level and every x levels thereafter. A guilder must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat. These bonus feats are in addition to the feat that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. A guilder is not limited to the list of fighter bonus feats when choosing these feats. Select from;
skill focus, skill emphasis, combat expertise, iron will, lightning reflexes, improved initiative, quick draw, rapid reload, endurance, great fortitiude, improved aid another, leadership, expert tactician, jack of all trades, open minded, deft opportunist, persuasive, negotiator, nimble fingers, deft hands, alertness, diligent, investigator, stealthy, Master Linguist, and [other BRCS ones].

Been There Done That (Ex); At first level a guilder may designate any two cross-class skills as class skills. At 4th, 8th, and 12th level the guilder may designate an additional skill as a class skill.

Journeyman's Tools (Ex); To best ply his trade a guilder needs the right equipment. Whether it is a jewlers loop, a con man's trick cards, or just business attire, the right tools can mean a world of difference. At 2nd level a guilder receives a set of masterwork equipment for free. These masterwork items provide a +2 competence bonus to one skill when used. The skill must be selected from appraise, craft[any one], profession[any one], forgery?, or sleight of hand?. Typical items include crafting tools, a snappy courtier's outfit, a certified merchant's balance and weights, a set of chef's knives, or the finest compass money can buy.

Precise Strike (Ex); At 2nd level, a guilder gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed weapon, gaining an extra 1d6 damage added to her normal damage roll.

When making a precise strike, a guilder cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield. A gulder’s precise strike only works against living creatures with discernible anatomies. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to a precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from a precise strike. At 11th level, the extra damage on a precise strike increases to +2d6.

Break Away (Ex); Skilled as he is, a guilder knows the sensibility of falling back from an unwinnable fight. starting at 4h level, he gains a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class in any round during which he does nothing but move.

Favored Market (Ex); At 5th level, a guilder may select a market in which he is especially skilled from among those in the Table:Guilder Favored Markets. The guilder receives a +2 bonus on Gather Information and Knowledge(local) checks in those markets. The guilder also receives a +2 bonus on one skill related to the market selected. This additional skill bonus may be used outside of the region or culture of the market.

At 10th level and every five levels thereafter, the guilder selects another favored market. In addition, at each such interval, the skill bonuses in any one favored market (including the one just selected, if so desired) increases by 2.

Favored Markets Bonus
Rjurik............................survival
Vosgaard ......................intimidate
Anuire ..........................knowledge(nobility and royalty)
Khinasi .........................knowledge(arcana)
Brechtur .......................profession(merchant)
Dwarven .......................any one craft skill
Goblin ...........................?
Elven ............................?
Sea-bourne Shipping ........profession(sailor)
Overland Caravans ..........handle animal
Blackmarket ...................intimidate
Banking .........................profession(bookkeeper)

Guilder Knack (Ex); For any skill check you can use 1/2 your guilder level [rounded up] in place of the number of ranks you have in the skill [even if that number is 0].
You cant take 10 with guilder knack. If the skill does not allow untrained checks, you must have at least 1 actual rank to attempt the check. [taken from phb2 p35, bardic knack]

Intellectual Agility (Ex); Starting at 7th level the guilder can channel her intellect to more physical needs. She adds her intelligence bonus to her initiative checks and reflex saves.

Silver Tongue (Ex); Constant dealing with others gives the guilder a keen sense of how to make them believe his lies. He may attempt a retry of the Bluff skill, but with a –5 penalty.

Opportunist (Ex); Once per round, the guilder can make an attack of opportunity against an opponent who has just been struck for damage in melee by another character. This attack counts as the guilder’s attack of opportunity for that round. Even a guilder with the Combat Reflexes feat can’t use the opportunist ability more than once per round.

Elaborate Parry (Ex); A guilder knows when to protect the goods. At 8th level and higher, if a guilder chooses to fight defensively or use total defense in melee combat, she gains an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC for each two levels of guilder she has.

Shielded Mind (Su); Crafty and difficult to read high level Guilders are. A conundrum to those that would magic them. Gains spell resistance against divination spells equal to 10+ her guilder level. This does not stack with other forms of spell resistance.

Skill Mastery; Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so.

Merchant Prince [pirate king]; A 17th lvl guilder's exploits have become so ledgendary that great numbers of lackeys, lawyers, thugs, and bean-counters are willing to sign on as his crew for no compensation other than a chance to share in his next great haul. Treat this ability as the equivalent of the Leadership feat, except that only followers [and no cohorts] are gained. This is in addition to any followers gained thru the Leadership feat.

----------------------------------------------
[I]Comments are welcome
A few more bonus feats could be added to the list. And, when you get what ability needs tuning... And the names of various abilities can be changed to provide more Cerelian flavor. And Ive done no playtesting...

I've tried to create a base class that would be welcome in any of the Complete source books. Any BR player considering not playing a frontline fighter type or spellcaster might consider this as a substitute for rogue. Skill points need not equate to sneak attack, evasion, and traps! :cool: With flexibility in class skills, favored markets, and bonus feats, I hope you could fashion a character for any region or race in Cerelia.

The combat style is not the emphasis of the class, but merely an attempt to give a canny merchant, be he hero or villian, something to do in combat. If bonus feats are used for combat related feats, this guilder could be a decent melee or ranged support character [ala the bard]. If the bonus feats go to non-combat skills, your weapon and armor proficiencies keep you from being completely a 'stay at home' character.[though the powergamer barbarian would faint at the sight of your weakness...]

ideas for some additional favored market abilities would be welcome. I tried to add some that wernt just new regions or cultures, as not every character travels extensively far from home.

[irdeggman]

Your position is not supported by Havens. According to it, the middle class DOES work. It says guilders work as sailors, as merchants, as farmers, etc.

But is more closely supported in 3.5 - see Cityscape.



Some guilders will be super-rich. But that doesn't mean they started that way. Class has little meaning in Brechtur. Money is the driving force in Brechtur. The rags-to-riches story is the Brecht dream. Someone who can do that ought to command a lot of respect and influence- they know how to turn a profit.

I think you are still confusing "class" with nobility here. Class in the context of wealth is what havens of the Great Bay is referring to. Using the 3.5 terminology, middle class are those pretty well off. I don't have my book in front of me but it also gives some "examples" {I'll check them when I get home}.

But saying "class" doesn't matter for the Brecht and insisting that Havens points out that most guilders are from the middle class just doesn't make any sense. Either it is important or it is not.




IMO, the guilder qualifies because it brings a lot of flavor to the setting, and is such a driving force of Brecht society. I think there are enough new abilities discussed here that make a working and enjoyable core class.

And something tha brings flavor, specifically regional flavor is almost exaclty within the use of Prestige Classes.

Pg 197 of the DMG under designing prestige classes:

"Ideally, a prestige class you design yourself is tied to an organization or culture in the campaign world."

DMG II pg 203+

There are 4 basic reasons to design a prestige class:

1. To satisfy players
2. To develop and organization
3. To develop a race or culture
4. To make otherwise poor options acceptable
5. The hidden 5th reason (opposition to PCs)


Besides, Rjurik has druids, Anuire and Khinasi have paladins, Vosgaard has barbarians. The Brecht need something of their own too.

See above. Also this is only a 2nd ed thing. Since we are talking about 3.5 the specific cultural restrictions on those classes does not exist anymore. Any culture (except elves) can support paladins (not all are likely, but all can). The same applies to barbarians and druids. Barbarians are more common in Vosgaard and Rjurik, likewise with rangers (although elves are likewise included for commonality for rangers too).

[irdeggman]

Okay, trial two,

Drop precise strike. It doesn't seem to fit the guilder concept (either in 2nd ed or as a we have been talking about here).

Evasion is a better fit and can be better justified via the seafaring tendency issue.

[Fizz]

But is more closely supported in 3.5 - see Cityscape.

Well, as you can see i'm coming from the 2nd Ed side of things. But i don't have Cityscape, and won't be getting it either. I'm basing my position off Birthright material.


I think you are still confusing "class" with nobility here. Class in the context of wealth is what havens of the Great Bay is referring to. Using the 3.5 terminology, middle class are those pretty well off. I don't have my book in front of me but it also gives some "examples" {I'll check them when I get home}.

But saying "class" doesn't matter for the Brecht and insisting that Havens points out that most guilders are from the middle class just doesn't make any sense. Either it is important or it is not.

I may be- that depends. Social class can exist but not be a determining factor in what a person can achieve. Whether `class' or `nobility' is the right word, i simply mean that any Brecht is capable of achieving great things regardless of where he started- Brechts aren't born into a certain lot in life from which they can't escape.


And something tha brings flavor, specifically regional flavor is almost exaclty within the use of Prestige Classes.

Yes, but prestige classes are also something you grow into. Since guilders can be skilled professionals (farmers, sailors, etc), requiring a prestige class doesn't make sense. In Birthright, each region does have it's iconic class.


See above. Also this is only a 2nd ed thing. Since we are talking about 3.5 the specific cultural restrictions on those classes does not exist anymore. Any culture (except elves) can support paladins (not all are likely, but all can). The same applies to barbarians and druids. Barbarians are more common in Vosgaard and Rjurik, likewise with rangers (although elves are likewise included for commonality for rangers too).

Well, the same applies to guilders. Havens does say that guilders from other cultures are unusual, but not banned, and that Dwarves make excellent guilders. So, i don't see this as being different as barbarians and druids- common in one culture, rare in another. But still a core class.


Note- please don't take any of my arguments as trying to tell anyone how to play their game. If it works for you, go for it. I'm merely trying to explain and defend my use of the guilder as a core class. Just wanted to make sure... :)


-Fizz

[ConjurerDragon]

Anthony Edwards schrieb:
> I removed the entire problem by realizing that ANYONE
> can be a guilder. I`ve had Fighters become
> guild-masters and rule guild holdings. I simply
> removed the "class requirement" from the different
> types of holdings...even source holdings simply
> because:
>
> Anyone with the "Blood of the Gods" could make a
> connection with the "Land" or whatever other force
> allows the collection of regency.
>
> The reason I did this is that I had players constantly
> debating "Why can`t my Fighter collect regency from a
> guild holding when he puts the time and effort into
> running the business?"
>
> I tried explaining it took certain skills to do it
> "the right way" but he explained (and justly so) that
> his fighter had a high INT and high CHA as well; so he
> didn`t think his fighter was not capable of running a
> business.
>
> So I said: "Ok...no class requirements for collecting
> regency...but if someone out "skills" you, I don`t
> want to hear complaining!"
>
> Worked out pretty good.
> Anthony Edwards
Allowing characters to collect Regency from holdings that are not
specific to their class is a major change on the domain level.
At worst it leads to the evil overlord who creates a monolithic empire
where he rules everything (province, law, temple...) and eradicates
every competition or NPC´s as regents to interact with *within* his realm.

It is a style of play I do not like - my favourite game is one in which
regents of different classes rule different parts of a realm - and
either work together or against each other to further the interests of
their domain.

As Regency is essentially power on the domain level would you also allow
a player of a wizard to attack with the BAB of a fighter? I mean if the
wizard has a high STR and CON as well you would not think that a wizard
was unable to wield a twohanded sword without penalty and fight just as
well as a Fighter? ;-)

If your player was playing in Anuire consider another layer of problems
- diplomacy. Running a guild business is for most nobility a necessary
evil that some underling does - but few of Anuires true nobility would
see with favour on a Duke who works also as an accountant.

[kgauck]

"I removed the entire problem by realizing that ANYONE can be a guilder. I`ve had Fighters become guild-masters and rule guild holdings."


Exactly, the "guilder" is really a concept more than something that can be quantified into one class. Anyone can be a guilder, regardless of class, by focusing their skills and feats on domain gain and perhaps financial expertise.

This is kind of like saying any class can be a warlord, build castles, and raise armies. And that is true. But a fighter, noble, and and the bounty of commander PrC's makes that job easier.

Consider Heidrek Bern, the High Marshal of the Armies of Stjordvik, and Lord of Uleåborg. He could be any class really. He just need to be able to direct the armies of King Varri. But as a Noble 2/Fighter 6/Warmaster 3, he makes a better High Marshal than he would if he were some non-combat oriented character. Likewise, just as any character could own guilds, engage in trade, espionage, and establishing trade routes, a character with skills and abilities that support negotiations, spotting market potential, and the value of goods will be better than someone who is not.

If the holdings are just a backdrop to the action, and the action is standard D&D adventuring, then sure, anyone can run any kind of holding as well as anyone else. But if the holdings are a key element to what the players are doing, and even their adventuring is closly bound up to their holdings, then being the class most associated with the holdings will be a better match.

[dalor]

So what you are telling me is that a Dwarven Fighter
could not own a mining business that extracts ore from
the ground, then turns it into weapons and armor to
sell, which is distributed by his warrior followers
guarding the caravans?

Could a rogue do it better...probably...and I warned
him of it. But a rogue isn`t the only one that can
count and make business deals. I refuse to allow all
traide to rest only in the hands on one class...that
is absurd to me.

Collecting regency is fine and well for whatever class
so long as they qualify to collect the regency with
proper holdings that they put together.

I`m not even going to get into a wizard attacking with
a Great Sword; it has nothing to do with what the
topic is.

As for your "Evil Overlord" idea...well, the Gorgon is
an Evil Overlord...so I guess he is trying it. Just
not too easy to do with only so much regency to go
around...NOBODY can control everything under the
rules...they simply couldn`t establish their hold in
one area without losing it in another.

Anthony Edwards

--- Michael Romes <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE> wrote:

> Allowing characters to collect Regency from holdings
> that are not
> specific to their class is a major change on the
> domain level.
> At worst it leads to the evil overlord who creates a
> monolithic empire
> where he rules everything (province, law, temple...)
> and eradicates
> every competition or NPC´s as regents to interact
> with *within* his realm.
>
> It is a style of play I do not like - my favourite
> game is one in which
> regents of different classes rule different parts of
> a realm - and
> either work together or against each other to
> further the interests of
> their domain.
>
> As Regency is essentially power on the domain level
> would you also allow
> a player of a wizard to attack with the BAB of a
> fighter? I mean if the
> wizard has a high STR and CON as well you would not
> think that a wizard
> was unable to wield a twohanded sword without
> penalty and fight just as
> well as a Fighter? ;-)
>
> If your player was playing in Anuire consider
> another layer of problems
> - diplomacy. Running a guild business is for most
> nobility a necessary
> evil that some underling does - but few of Anuires
> true nobility would
> see with favour on a Duke who works also as an
> accountant.
>
>

>
> Birthright-l Archives:
> http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to
> LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>
>




__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited

[dalor]

I did say I warned him didn`t I? I thought I remember
saying that...

Rogues will run a guild holding better...but I`m not
going to preclude any class from any holding...didn`t
say they will get the best benefit from it.

How many business owners today try and fail because
they just aren`t suited to it? Lots...and so we will
see how it goes.


Anthony Edwards

--- kgauck <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> "I removed the entire problem by realizing that
> ANYONE can be a guilder. I`ve had Fighters become
> guild-masters and rule guild holdings."
> -----------------------------
> This is kind of like saying any class can be a
> warlord, build castles, and raise armies. And that
> is true. But a fighter, noble, and and the bounty
> of commander PrC`s makes that job easier.
>
> Consider Heidrek Bern, the High Marshal of the
> Armies of Stjordvik, and Lord of Uleåborg. He could
> be any class really. He just need to be able to
> direct the armies of King Varri. But as a Noble
> 2/Fighter 6/Warmaster 3, he makes a better High
> Marshal than he would if he were some non-combat
> oriented character. Likewise, just as any character
> could own guilds, engage in trade, espionage, and
> establishing trade routes, a character with skills
> and abilities that support negotiations, spotting
> market potential, and the value of goods will be
> better than someone who is not.
>
> If the holdings are just a backdrop to the action,
> and the action is standard D&D adventuring, then
> sure, anyone can run any kind of holding as well as
> anyone else. But if the holdings are a key element
> to what the players are doing, and even their
> adventuring is closly bound up to their holdings,
> then being the class most associated with the
> holdings will be a better match.



__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

[irdeggman]

From Cityscape (pg 58-59)

"Members of the lower class include actors, beggars, farmers, groundskeepers, money-changers, prostitutes, serfs, shepherds, street-corner entertainers, street thieves, thugs, laborers, and vagabonds."

"Members of the middle class include artisans, butlers, craftsmen, merchants, military officers, minor guild-masters, petty or landless nobles, priests, and successful shopkeepers and innkeepers."

"Members of the upper class include ambassadors, city aldermen, high priests, knights, magic-item vendors, magistrates, major guild-masters, military generals, nobles, powerful merchants, poweful spellcasters-for-hire, respected sages, royalty, and successful high-level adventurers."

Those are the "official" 3.5 examples of the social classes.

So redardless of what was in 2nd ed, if we are dealing with 3.5 then we need to stay within the 3.5 terminology and structure.


Now on pg 59 there is a variant rule for social classes for adventurers and career skills. Basically a character can choose 3 skills from a set list that become permanent class skils, if one of those skilsl is already a clas skill (of her starting clas) then she gets a permanent +1 competence bonsu to that skill. {Real similar to d20 Modern and starting occupations}

Lower-class skills: Craft, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Knowledge (local), Profession

Middle-class skills: Appraise, Craft, Profession, Knowledge (local), Knowledge (nobility and royalty)

Upper-class skills: Diplomacy, Knowledge (history), Knowledge (nobility and royalty), Ride, Speak Language

[Fizz]

From Cityscape (pg 58-59)

"Members of the lower class include actors, beggars, farmers, groundskeepers, money-changers, prostitutes, serfs, shepherds, street-corner entertainers, street thieves, thugs, laborers, and vagabonds."

"Members of the middle class include artisans, butlers, craftsmen, merchants, military officers, minor guild-masters, petty or landless nobles, priests, and successful shopkeepers and innkeepers."

"Members of the upper class include ambassadors, city aldermen, high priests, knights, magic-item vendors, magistrates, major guild-masters, military generals, nobles, powerful merchants, poweful spellcasters-for-hire, respected sages, royalty, and successful high-level adventurers."


Actually, this is consistent with the 2nd Ed guilder anyways. Havens says the guilder represents the middle class, and mentions that many guilders have working careers. Examples of merchants, blacksmiths, sailors, farmers are all mentioned. These do fall into the category of Middle Class (or even Lower Class) as defined above.

As they advance in levels, of course they'll move of out the Middle into the Upper class. That makes sense- more money, more power, etc.

So this just reiterates the point i was trying to make- guilders do not have to be upper-crust nobles or uber-rich when they start out. I think that further supports making it a core class as opposed to a prestige class.


-Fizz

[kgauck]

So this just reiterates the point i was trying to make- guilders do not have to be upper-crust nobles or uber-rich when they start out. I think that further supports making it a core class as opposed to a prestige class.

No said it was a requirement. Some of us argued that between Noble and Rogue, things were pretty much covered. 3rd edition is about options, not limitations. When someone remarks that this class does that better, its not the same as saying some other class is barred from doing the thing.


I think most DM's would approve that a young rogue hoping to be a guilder could swap all his sneak attacks for skill based feats like Persuasive, Negotiator, Deceitful, Diligent, Investigator, or whatever.


See? Right there you've got yourself a variant class.

But my suggestion doesn't need special approval, its presented in the RAW, albeit not the core rules. Adding every possible class varient would endlessly extend the BR rules when such matters are dealt with already out there. In the original 2e materials, they mentioned what kits were appropriate to the setting without bothering to detail those kits again.


If it works for you, go for it. I'm merely trying to explain and defend my use of the guilder as a core class.

Whether the guilder is best described as a core class, a PrC, or as a varient on a standard class seems best left to individual DM's. In these days where you can find Rangers, Paladins, and Bards written up as PrC's in the latest suppliments, quibbles like this don't seem as significant. Had I realized the debate was only over this I think I would have nodded sagely and moved on. I got the distinct impression that you felt that rogues and nobles were unacceptable as guilder core classes and that a Guilder PrC was more than just not ideal for you, but a bad idea.


Rogues will run a guild holding better...but I`m not going to preclude any class from any holding...didn`t say they will get the best benefit from it.

No one say preclude anyone from anything. I only went as far as saying that some classes will do better on the details of running particular kinds of realms. Michael Romes only questioned the idea of granting full regency to all classes regardless of the holding. Plenty of rulers in the 2e published material had holdings they could only gain half or no regency from. So no one was arguing preculsion. The only arguments that have been advanced is that some classes do better, some classes get the best benefit. 3rd edition is about options, not limitations.


At worst it leads to the evil overlord who creates a monolithic empire where he rules everything (province, law, temple...) and eradicates every competition or NPC´s as regents to interact with *within* his realm.

Since this was common during the Reniasance, when the state took control of the Church, granted monopolies and withdrew them at a whim, and generally broke the power of all rival powers to the throne, this seems in keeping with the description of the Anuireans, Brecht, and Khinasi as being at the Renaisance level of development. Obviously this is not is a requirement imposed on all games at all times by the game police. But its certainly a reasonable goal for players AFAIC. YMMV.

[Fizz]

I got the distinct impression that you felt that rogues and nobles were unacceptable as guilder core classes and that a Guilder PrC was more than just not ideal for you, but a bad idea.

Yeah, and i thought you guys were implying it needed to be done via the Noble class.

No harm done- it made sure we considered all the possibilities. :)


The only arguments that have been advanced is that some classes do better, some classes get the best benefit. 3rd edition is about options, not limitations.

Agreed. We're coming at it from two different angles with two different priorities. Our own preferences and philosophy of gaming will determine what is best for our own games.

I tend to be a 2nd Ed Birthright purist- i'd rather adapt 3E to Birthright than the other way around. That probably explains my desire for a core Guilder.


-Fizz

[kgauck]

I tend to be a 2nd Ed Birthright purist- i'd rather adapt 3E to Birthright than the other way around. That probably explains my desire for a core Guilder.

In that case, lets use a kit to convert characters into a guilder! :-D

[Fizz]

In that case, lets use a kit to convert characters into a guilder! :-D

Nooooooo! Not kits! :)

-Fizz

[Danip]

The original post was about a core class, so Im considering that. Guilder could be a PrC, but you would be left with the same delemma at early levels. What classes to be to get to Guilder? Mechanically noble or rogue would probably work best. But they might be missing the flavor you want; noble because of implied silver spoon/training, and rogue because of trapfinding and sneaky stuff.

There are several different class options to be a fighter type, an arcane spellcaster, or a divine spellcaster. But not many with 8 skill points for a talented character theme. [scout iirc, but that is even less of a fit for most guilders] D&D kinda needs more rogue replacements. maybe complete scoundrel will adress that...

I've put a big selection of bonus feats and player-selected class skills in my suggested guilded. Hopefully that provides enough flexibility for everyone's differing visions of what they want their guilder character or npc to be.

duane-
evasion; I dont think evasion is a good fit. In trying to differentiate from the rogue I have shied away from dex-based abilities. Evasion requires a good reflex save [which I havent given] and a good dex to be very useful. Im also wary of giving the guilder too many rogue abilities, because that would make guilder/rogue multiclassing less appealing.

Also precise strike provides some decent damage dealing [probably the strongest combat ability i gave]. But evasion is about occasional damage reduction, so not a fair trade by itself. you might think of precise strike as being a replacement for sneak attack

Mechanically I think precise strike is kinda flavor neutral. A small but consistent damage boost when using a variety of typical small weapons. In character other characters would just note that, "that guy doesnt use a great sword, but seems to be smart about where he hits. He's handy in a fight, but i think i could take him..."

If you think evasion is a good fit, we could instead add Dive for Cover to the bonus feat list. iirc, on a failed reflex save, get to try again but end up prone. Not so much a dex-based ability, as an intelligence one [when fireballs start flying, "duck!"].

[irdeggman]

Here is something else to consider there are many "types" of guilders.

There is the more merchant straight up business kind.

There is also the shady, strong armed type (like the mob). {For this kind the sneaky rogue skills would apply, whereas they wouldn't for the more standard business oriented one}

There is the explorer type - taking chances for great risks.

Now sneak attack would fit the shady kind.

Evasion would fit the shady and explorer kinds.

Hide, Move Silently would fit the shady kind

Diplomacy, bluff, appraise would fit the more standard merchant kind (although a case could be made to fit all types)

Speak language could fit them all, although a better fit is the standard merchant and explorer types.

So where to go to now?

I mean it isn't desireable to shoe-horn the class into a single choice type of character.

[Danip]

I see many different varieties of guilder too.

I would even break down the underworld guilder even more. The Godfather type would be a bit of intimidate, diplomacy, k[nobility], sneak attack, but not evasion or trapfinding.[don coreleone is an underhanded sob, but has a real low dex]. The head of a thieves guild that does lots of burglaries would probably be right at home with the rogue class. A smuggler would be different still. A lowlife pimp or fence would look different from the Godfather or a rogue.

Perhaps we could pare down the class skills and increase the number of optional class skills provided. not every guilder would have lots of languages. But im thinking we could end up going a bit to far with optional class skills. Some very odd skill sets that dont look at all 'guildery' could be made. [k[arcana],warcraft,k[religion],spellcraft,concentration,heal,etc] Dont want to make a class that is just "dip into me for skills in whatever u need."

Even if speak lang isnt used by most guilders it matches the theme well.

So what skills should be class skills for all guilders because they match the general theme, even if some guilders wont take them?

i think;
1 must haves
appraise, administrate, profession[merchant], knowledge[local]

2 almost all guilders should have,
bluff, diplomacy, gather info, intimidate, sense motive,

3 fit the theme, but a bit specialized [i.e. 0 ranks wouldnt be strange]
Sleight of Hand, speak language, craft[all], profession[all], gamble, forgery, Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (nobility and royalty), Knowledge (history), Knowledge (Architecture and engineering), search, disguise,

3.5 bland on theme, but probably class skills
listen, spot

4 even more specialized, but needed for a particular type [i.e. dont fit the general theme, but easily fit some guilders]
balance, climb, survival, escape artist, handle animal, jump, k[nature], k[dungeoneering], hide, move silently, open lock, perform, Decipher Script, use rope, swim, tumble, use magic device, disable device, lead

5 dont fit theme, but might be selected as odd class skills for odd builds
concentration, heal, k[arcana], k[religion], k[planes], k[blood], ride?, spellcraft, warcraft

Of course, i expect different people will group those skills a little differently. Bumping up or down a category in your mind is to be expected.

Looking at the groupings, I think the top 3 categories make a decent universal class skill set. A guilder taking lots of ranks of one of those is hardly specializing or drawing on a diverse background/training. I note group four has alot of rogue skills, so someone who wants alot of those rogue skills might consider multiclassing to rogue. But the sailor guilder should be able to use his optional class skills to pick up balance, swim, and use rope. Or the explorer k[nature], survival, handle animal. A dwarf merchant k[dungoneering], climb, disable device.

I also like the idea of gaining new class skills as you level up. Characters tend to grow organically and want to branch out a bit. hard to know where the campaign is going at first level.

thoughts?

[irdeggman]

WotC hasn't added "gamble" to the list of skills for D&D yet. It is there for Star Wars but not D&D (as well as profession (gambler)), well I haven't seen it yet.

Complete Scoundral might have something to say on that when it comes out though.

[The Swordgaunt]

While I agree that there might be room for a Guilder core class, i would personnally rather see it as a PrC. This would allow the Dwarven Fighter to set up his own minig guild, he would sacrifice his martial prowress for his mercantile success. To me this makes sence, as I see classes as an occupation. Bashing Orogs from nine to five leaves little time for contract negotiations and meetings with sub-contractors.

I would also like to see more BR-appropriate PrC's. I feel that these give more depth to the setting, as well as more diversity.

I agree that the Noble or the Rogue class makes for the best classes for a starting Guilder, depending on what kind of a guilder you want to create. I've found that a mix of the two makes the most sence.

As for the Rouge as the merchantile default class, well, it is rather top-heavy on the stealthy side. The skill variation model allowes for variation, but the special abilities is a bit leading, IMO. This can be remedied quite easily by swapping them with the more guilder-appropriate options, so why not include this as a "kit" -sorry, Fizz- in the rules (or house rules)? By this, the whole problem would dissapear.

[Fizz]

While I agree that there might be room for a Guilder core class, i would personnally rather see it as a PrC. This would allow the Dwarven Fighter to set up his own minig guild, he would sacrifice his martial prowress for his mercantile success. To me this makes sence, as I see classes as an occupation. Bashing Orogs from nine to five leaves little time for contract negotiations and meetings with sub-contractors.

I don't quite understand this logic- how is this different than any other class? I mean, all dwarves love bashing orogs, yet many dwarves are clerics and rogues.

Plus, nothing saying the dwarf couldn't multi-class to guilder (core). (Havens does say that dwarves make good guilders.)

-Fizz

[Fizz]

Instead of Evasion or Uncanny Dodge, i think Trap Sense would be a workable addition. It seems very fitting for adventuring and scoundrel guilders alike.

Perhaps a bunch of `special abilities' could be added in the same way that they are for rogues. At a certain levels, the guilder gets to choose one. They'd be different from the rogue's of course, but would allow people to customize their guilder a bit more.

-Fizz

[kgauck]

A guilder PrC doesn't preclude some kind of merchant class available from the start, whether a rogue varient, or something fresh out of the carton. Both make some sense.

We could make merchant a core class and then create PrC's that cover the distinct types already covered, kingpin, merchant prince, explorer, and a dwarven guilder that specialized in marketing and crafting stone and metal orbjects.

Put aside which of these really represents the true sprit of the word "guilder" so as to lay the rest the issue of whether its really a core class or a PrC, and give all of them the spirit of the guilder as described in all of the BR materials.

[irdeggman]

A guilder PrC doesn't preclude some kind of merchant class available from the start, whether a rogue varient, or something fresh out of the carton. Both make some sense.

We could make merchant a core class and then create PrC's that cover the distinct types already covered, kingpin, merchant prince, explorer, and a dwarven guilder that specialized in marketing and crafting stone and metal orbjects.

Put aside which of these really represents the true sprit of the word "guilder" so as to lay the rest the issue of whether its really a core class or a PrC, and give all of them the spirit of the guilder as described in all of the BR materials.

Or perhaps a merchant-style core class and a prestige class that focuses on the domain level instead.

It probably makes more sense that way, that is by low level actions (i.e., character level) a character learns how to work the system even better (i.e., domain level) and then provide class abilities that aid in domain level economic play.

[Fizz]

Hmmm... i think this guilder/merchant talk is reversed.

The Merchant sounds more like a prestige class because it's a more narrowly defined role than the guilder. A merchant would be a specialized guilder. But guilders are not limited to being merchants. Some are locksmiths, farmers, mariners, etc.


-Fizz

[ploesch]

Doesn't a Noble work just fine as a Merchant class?

I thought the whole idea of the Noble class was a well connected regent of anything but source holdings. Depending on your focus, you could adjust the class to be anything.

As for Guilder as a PrC keep in mind prestige classes never have class requirements, per se. They have skill and/or talent requirements, and when appropriate the ability to cast at least a certain level of a certain type of magic. Occasionally you will have requirement of sneak attack die, but those are few. Most PrC classes can be taken by any class, it's just easier for certain classes to meet the requirements. I don't see the Guilder having any of the requirements that would make it class specific, although some classes might be able to get it sooner than others.

[dalor]

I like the line of thought of a Guilder PrC...allows
my grumpy steel-works dwarf to be a Guilder and
collect Regency while still allowing him to beat down
on some baddies when he makes that nice sword and
tests it on a goblin! He wanted to originally "test"
every blade made by killing an orog, goblin, gnoll or
what have you...his selling pitch was: "Tested True!
A blade tested on an enemy" or something like that. I
talked him out of it though, telling him it would be
hard to take a wagon load of weapons into Markazor to
test them out without pretty much causing a small
scale war. Took some convincing though!

But with a Guilder PrC that gave as bonus feats some
of the Domain Feats...that would be pretty cool.


Anthony Edwards




__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.

[Danip]

WotC hasn't added "gamble" to the list of skills for D&D yet. It is there for Star Wars but not D&D (as well as profession (gambler)), well I haven't seen it yet.
Just added that to the list because the op did. Ive seen it as a houserule in a few dnd games. Of course, if its not in your game, it wouldnt be used. Just looking at where it would be grouped...



As for the Rouge as the merchantile default class, well, it is rather top-heavy on the stealthy side. The skill variation model allowes for variation, but the special abilities is a bit leading, IMO. This can be remedied quite easily by swapping them with the more guilder-appropriate options, so why not include this as a "kit" -sorry, Fizz- in the rules (or house rules)? By this, the whole problem would dissapear.
Rogue is the current class closest to mercantile [with noble also]. Dropping the special abilities [sneak attack, traps, high dex evasion/uncanny dodge] and swapping out some sneaky/tumble-ly class skills.....ummm...thats pretty much what i did to make a new core class 'guilder'. Whether you call it a kit, a variant rogue, or a new core class is just semantics. But as it only has hit die and 8/lvl skill points left in common with rogue, i figure it strains the definition of variant.


I like the line of thought of a Guilder PrC..
allows my grumpy steel-works dwarf to be a Guilder and
collect Regency
Multiclassing into a core class guilder would also allow that. Skill ranks is the determining factor of regency collection. Rogue, a core class guilder, and a PrC guilder would have those same skills as class skills. They would each give 8 skill points per level, so your dwarf would attain regency collection at the same rate in any of those classes. However, because a guilder PrC would likely have skill point prerequisites you would still have the delemma of where to get those skills. Having a core class guilder in addition to rogue or noble merely gives you a different flavor option for gaining all those guilder skills.



We could make merchant a core class and then create PrC's that cover the distinct types already covered, kingpin, merchant prince, explorer, and a dwarven guilder that specialized in marketing and crafting stone and metal orbjects.
Leaving aside wheter the merchant core class would be better called a guilder for the moment.... What special abilities would you give these PrCs?

If you have in mind domain level bonuses, I think these PrCs should be part of a larger array of balanced option for players. A warlord and a statesman PrC for realm regents. A court wizard, a mysterious loner wizard, and a battle mage PrC. And something for priests. [and maybe sherriff and robin hood for law regents] At the very least an option for each player at your table to get domain benes.

If you have in mind some other abilities, perhaps they could be included as optional abilities for a merchantile core class at higher level. As already seen, with optional class skills and bonus feats, a core class guilder can decently model most of those varieties of specialization [with some rogue levels taking up the rest]. Im not sure that a PrC for each variety of guilder is needed, unless your overflowing with ideas for abilities. There are so many ways to play a guilder that i dont even think that we could anticpate them and make PrCs for all. In fact, having a few juicy PrCs might discourage player creativity as they plan ahead for that one cool ability.


Instead of Evasion or Uncanny Dodge, i think Trap Sense would be a workable addition. It seems very fitting for adventuring and scoundrel guilders alike.
Trap sense is kind of in the core competence of the rogue. I was thinking of having the new core class not repeat any of the low level [1-9] rogue abilities so that multiclassing between them would not be penalized.


Perhaps a bunch of `special abilities' could be added in the same way that they are for rogues. At a certain levels, the guilder gets to choose one. They'd be different from the rogue's of course, but would allow people to customize their guilder a bit more.

I had that in my first suggestion. But what abilities? and how to balance? As it is, my levels 13-20 are mostly empty except for the continuation of progressions. ideas of special abilities welcome...

[irdeggman]

Multiclassing into a core class guilder would also allow that. Skill ranks is the determining factor of regency collection. Rogue, a core class guilder, and a PrC guilder would have those same skills as class skills. They would each give 8 skill points per level, so your dwarf would attain regency collection at the same rate in any of those classes. However, because a guilder PrC would likely have skill point prerequisites you would still have the delemma of where to get those skills. Having a core class guilder in addition to rogue or noble merely gives you a different flavor option for gaining all those guilder skills.



Multiclassing and core classes have an inherent restricition that multiclassing an presitge classes do not - the xp penalty.

Dwarves (who are supposedly good guilders from 2nd ed) have fighter as their favored class.

The point of the skill rank prerequisites would to be reflect the "background" and training/experience the character would need before become a master guilder instead of someone who handles far fewer guilds.

And pretty much rogue and/or noble would allow qualification sooner than any other class (which pretty much makes sense).

[dalor]

BUT...if it is a core class...it counts against his
xp...whereas a PrC would not!


Anthony Edwards

--- Danip <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> I like the line of thought of a Guilder PrC..
> allows my grumpy steel-works dwarf to be a Guilder
> and
> collect Regency
> -----------------------------
>
>
> Multiclassing into a core class guilder would also
> allow that. Skill ranks is the determining factor
> of regency collection. Rogue, a core class guilder,
> and a PrC guilder would have those same skills as
> class skills. They would each give 8 skill points
> per level, so your dwarf would attain regency
> collection at the same rate in any of those classes.
> However, because a guilder PrC would likely have
> skill point prerequisites you would still have the
> delemma of where to get those skills. Having a core
> class guilder in addition to rogue or noble merely
> gives you a different flavor option for gaining all
> those guilder skills.




__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.

[Danip]

And pretty much rogue and/or noble would allow qualification sooner than any other class (which pretty much makes sense).
BUT...if it is a core class...it counts against his
xp...whereas a PrC would not! To be a good guild regent or enter a guilder PrC you need alot of skill points in an array of skills. How will a fighter or cleric with 2 skill points per level get these points? Currently by multiclassing to rogue or noble [or bard in a pinch]. These are core classes. I dont see how this xp argument is a powerful argument against a core class guilder. Unless you set the entry requirements for a guilder very low, a fighter who wants to rock at being a guild regent is going to have to multiclass. [and the dwarf fighter example could do this easily, as fighter is his favored class and thus doesnt enter into xp penalty calculations]

In the Complete source books, there are PrC's very close to monk, paladin, and ranger which can be entered from another discipline. Having a guilder core class merely gives you a different flavor option for gaining all those guilder skills. It does not preclude any guild based PrCs.

DnD has very few options for a skill based character. Guild domains and 'guilder' characters need lots of points in lots of skills. Currently they are stuck with trying to kludge something together with rogue and/or other less fitting classes [ranger, bard, noble, scout].

The dwarf fighter you describe is possibly another kludge. Perhaps the player would have been happy making his "steel-works" dwarf a guilder/fighter, but finds rogue/fighter repellant . Thus he complains, why is rogue the only good way to collect guild regency...do you know how many levels of fighter it will take for me to get enough skill points? [about 17 levels i think to reach 100%....9 levels of dedicated skill allocation to get any] 2-4 levels of a core class guilder could set him up guilding nicely.


I've been thinking that the Guilder deserves to be a full class. I mean, if the noble can make it into the 3E rules, a guilder can too. Yes, the rogue has plenty of skills. But not all guilders should be able to sneak attack.....
I'm sure others have some further ideas that would flesh it out a bit more. Just to keep the thread from veering too much... the original post was about a full guilder class, so does anyone have any ideas to help build one?

[I]special abilties for specialization at higher levels?
class skills?
un-rogue-like combat styles?
weapon profs.?

[Fizz]

Just to keep the thread from veering too much... the original post was about a full guilder class, so does anyone have any ideas to help build one?

special abilties for specialization at higher levels?
class skills?
un-rogue-like combat styles?
weapon profs.?

Well, my own version was intended to stay similar to the original concept found in Havens. With the input here, and some more thought, i've come up with this:

Hit Die: d6 (maybe d8?)
Saves: Good Ref and Wil
BAB: moderate (as a rogue)
Skill points: 10
Class Skills: Any 15 (player's choice)

Weapons: all simple and martial
Armor: light and medium and all shields

Favored Skill: Similar to rangers favored enemy- Guilder gets +2 (or maybe 2 bonus ranks) in a single skill, then another pair of +2 bonuses at 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th level.

Pidgin: 2nd level. Like Decipher Script but for spoken language.

Jack of all trades: at 4th level, use any skill untrained.

Trap Sense: (as rogue) at 7th level. A sense of knowing when they've been ambushed either physically or financially, etc.

Slippery Mind: (as rogue) at 11th level.

Special abilities: Choose one at 6th level and every 4 levels after
* Favored Market (from Danip)
* Intellectual agility (from Danip)
* Opportunist (as rogue)
* Guilder Knack (from Danip)
* Skill Mastery (as rogue)
* Improvised Tools: with 2 skills, the penalty for not having proper tools is halved
* Trapfinding (as rogue)
* Bonus feat (any)


I think this works and would be quite playable.

-Fizz

[RaspK_FOG]

Again, my criticism:

d6 per se: you are not talking about any real combatant, are you? Scoundrels, swshbucklers, rogues, vagabonds, bards, virtuosos, experts... They all get d6s! d8s are reserved for monks, rangers, druids and clerics. See the difference?

And, as for 10 skill points... You have my clear vote against it! If you'd like, grant them 8, plus 2 per level that they have to spend on specific skills (any Craft or Profession skill, etc.).

[Fizz]

Again, my criticism:
d6 per se: you are not talking about any real combatant, are you? Scoundrels, swshbucklers, rogues, vagabonds, bards, virtuosos, experts... They all get d6s! d8s are reserved for monks, rangers, druids and clerics. See the difference?


I don't see them as primary combatants, no. That said, i don't think a d8 would hurt the theme of the class any.


And, as for 10 skill points... You have my clear vote against it! If you'd like, grant them 8, plus 2 per level that they have to spend on specific skills (any Craft or Profession skill, etc.).

Possibly. Personally i don't think the 10 skill points is a bad thing- they're still subject to normal max ranks in this version, so i don't forsee any problems with early qualification for prestige classes, etc, that others have voiced concern over. But your way may work fine too.


-Fizz

[dalor]

I feel that a d8 is too high of a HD...secondary
combatants should have d8s...like RANGERS. Guilders,
being primarily merchants, I don`t see having the
physical toughness of a near warrior.

Ten skill points is too many in my opinion...and would
conflict with the idea of a need for d8 HP. I know
"what does he mean by that!" Well, someone spending
so much time learning things would have less time to
work on their body...so a lower HD would be best.
Perhaps give one or the other...but not both.

Even with a d6 as HD, I am still barely able to
justify 10 skill points a level. A human Guilder at
level one with a modest 14 INT would have a monster
number of skill points: 52!!!

A rogue couldn`t even keep up with this; and skills
are supposed to be their primary "power" in the game.


Anthony Edwards

--- Fizz <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> Again, my criticism:
> d6 per se: you are not talking about any real
> combatant, are you? Scoundrels, swshbucklers,
> rogues, vagabonds, bards, virtuosos, experts... They
> all get d6s! d8s are reserved for monks, rangers,
> druids and clerics. See the difference?
>
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> I don`t see them as primary combatants, no. That
> said, i don`t think a d8 would hurt the theme of the
> class any.
>
>
>
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> And, as for 10 skill points... You have my clear
> vote against it! If you`d like, grant them 8, plus 2
> per level that they have to spend on specific skills
> (any Craft or Profession skill, etc.).
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> Possibly. Personally i don`t think the 10 skill
> points is a bad thing- they`re still subject to
> normal max ranks in this version, so i don`t forsee
> any problems with early qualification for prestige
> classes, etc, that others have voiced concern over.
> But your way may work fine too.
>
>
> -Fizz



__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

[Fizz]

I feel that a d8 is too high of a HD...secondary
combatants should have d8s...like RANGERS. Guilders, being primarily merchants, I don`t see having the physical toughness of a near warrior.


OK, guilders are not meant to be mere merchants. They are much more than that- adventurers going out in the name of capitalism. They're explorers seeking profit. In that sense, fighting may be important from time to time. Think of an Indiana Jones type character- he's out seeking riches, but isn't a weakling in a fight.


Even with a d6 as HD, I am still barely able to
justify 10 skill points a level. A human Guilder at
level one with a modest 14 INT would have a monster
number of skill points: 52!!!

OK, but at 8 skill points he'd have 44. That's only 8 more at first level, which is an 18% increase. He doesn't have the other nice features of a rogue at first level, nor has he as many skills to choose from so i think that's ok.


A rogue couldn`t even keep up with this; and skills
are supposed to be their primary "power" in the game.

I've never understood (other than historical devlopment of the game) why rogues are the so-called master of skills, plus a bunch of stealthy stuff. Rogues are 3E thieves- they only get plenty of skill points so they can use all the abilities that were formerly their own exclusive domain.

But that's a game design philosophy debate, which isn't the point of the thread. My concern right now is whether the class is balanced.

-Fizz

[RaspK_FOG]

What I am trying to tell you is that, first of all, neither is a bard or rogue a mere person; consider how people who don't get into trouble (peasants, commoners, sorcerers, wizards) get only d4s, whereas a d6 signifies getting into fights and so on, but not being a regular, actual combatant...

To put it bluntly, consider the monk and ranger classes: one is an outdoorsman that hikes, runs, climbs, etc. all in a natural environment such as a forest, desert, mountain, or such, and the other is a martial artist! I mean, can we even begin to say that the guilder is like them!? Absurd!

As for skill points, there you have it: being able to spend more than 8 skill points in any possible skill IS NOT balanced; on the other hand, saying that they get 8 or 6 skill points and another 2 or 4 (respectively) that can only be spent on guilder class skills (or a subset of them) seems quite simple and reasonable to me. In case you want to disagree as to number of skills one should be getting, allow me to remind you that EXPERTS get only 6 base skill points with each level they take; exactly as many as a bard or ranger... Now, pushing that to 10... I don't know, it kind of misses the point, in my opinion.

[kgauck]

Looking over the guilder posted by Fizz, it certainly seems like a rogue varient, but one that does have a few increases in power. It seems like all the base combat power of a rogue with the special abilities swapped out for guilder abilities, plus 10 skill points.

I don't think the class is out of whack, but it does seem better than other classes. For a Brecht campaign where everyone might want a few levels of Guilder its not too bad. Similar classes would suffer by comparison, though. Who would elect to take more than one or three levels of rogue unless they really, really like the sneak attack ability? Likewise the Scoundrel (which isn't a D&D class, but suffers by comparison).

I'm not wedded to balance, so if these issues don't seem like problems to you, then I think the class is fine.

[Fizz]

To put it bluntly, consider the monk and ranger classes: one is an outdoorsman that hikes, runs, climbs, etc. all in a natural environment such as a forest, desert, mountain, or such, and the other is a martial artist! I mean, can we even begin to say that the guilder is like them!? Absurd!

You seem to be under the impression that a character with d8 hit points must be a secondary combatant or that d8 is the only criteria that makes a good secondary combatant. I disagree. In the case of the ranger, he a good BAB and special combat abilities. In the case of the monk, he has his own set of abilities.

Would you consider the Shadow Dancer or Hierophant secondary combatants? They've both got a d8. What about aristocrats- an NPC with a life of luxury yet with a d8? Hit dice are a measure of physical toughness, which can be unrelated to how much you can dish it out.

Now you think d6- that's fine. I've not made up my mind myself. I'm just saying that a d8 doesn't hurt the theme of the class any, particularly if you think of them from the Indiana Jones / Van Helsing archtype.


As for skill points, there you have it: being able to spend more than 8 skill points in any possible skill IS NOT balanced; on the other hand, saying that they get 8 or 6 skill points and another 2 or 4 (respectively) that can only be spent on guilder class skills (or a subset of them) seems quite simple and reasonable to me.

But why is 10 skill points alone unbalancing? Why is giving the 2 extra ones instead not balancing? The end result is the same. It makes no difference except to be slightly more restrictive and more complicated than necessary. The player can almost always tweak the distribution of points to get the desired result anyways.


In case you want to disagree as to number of skills one should be getting, allow me to remind you that EXPERTS get only 6 base skill points with each level they take; exactly as many as a bard or ranger... Now, pushing that to 10... I don't know, it kind of misses the point, in my opinion.

By that argument fighters should only get a d8 for hit points because that's what warriors get. No, experts are an NPC class, while guilders are meant to be a fully playable PC class.

The class might be unbalanced for a number of reasons- i just disagree that 10 skill points by itself is an unbalancing factor.

-Fizz

[RaspK_FOG]

You do know you are not saying the same things I do, right?

First of all, an outdoorsman and a martial artist, as I insisted, are not really characterised by being "secondary combatants;" no, what defines them is toughness...

On the matter of other classes: clerics and druids are examples of commonly cloistered monk-like hermits that also happen to fight a lot and generally lead a life of quite some hardship; likewise, animals and the average humanoid also do get d8s. Notice, now, how a commoner gets a d4... Why is that? But, of course, because he is not so tough!

A d6, now... That represents the man who is above the commoner, yet not as tough as a hermit, outdoorsman, secondary combatant (and a shadowdancer is a primarily melee combatant when it comes to fighting, although not a promary fighter), or person who is trained to fight and act and defend himself (like the aristocrat); and lo and behold! A warrior also gets d8s!

Thus, the question is: should a guilder be equally capable a combatant (as this is the breakdown of a class's BAB and HD) as an aristocrat? Remember, an aristocrat did get combat training. Interestingly enough, a guilder retains a thief's lesser combat prowess, yet still some competence it is, unlike that of a wizard, and toughness! See my point? The only reason, by comparison, that magicians get d6s is that they certainly are more of a wandering, roughed-up sort, quite close to the expert, in a sense.

This leads me to my final point: I didn't suggest that your character gets only 6 skill points, I suggested that he does not get 10 skill points. For one thing, medium armours are good for a guilder (breastplate, anyone?), Speak Language seems an appropriate class skill, and I certainly like the giving him 8 skill points, plus 2 skill points that he must spend on guilder class skills (which would be simpler than adding a line that said that he had to spend 2 out of 10 on specific skills would ever be!), which, while not restricting him to no end, surely gives more of a feel of a "more apt at using skills" rogue - in the traditional sense of the word.

Still, that's the least of my worries; you see, what I greatly dislike about the net is that someone out there makes his ideas known and, when someone disagrees, no matter what, the only retort he can pretty much expect is: "That's OK if that's what you want, but I've already decided; oh, by the way, people, this is my work..." Then, of course, you feel compeled to explain to the world how Mrs. Robinson was not a song written by The Beatles, but Simon & Garfunkel, but everyone has a "Mrs. Robinson - The Beatles.mp3" file somewhere on their shared files... *sigh* :( See my point?

10 skill points per level, I'm fine with. d8? Not a chance.

Sorry if I am too headstrong, and I would really appreciate a final rundown of what you intend to do; my regards. :)

[kgauck]

What about aristocrats- an NPC with a life of luxury yet with a d8?

I don't think aristocrats are wallowing in luxury. Or perhaps I should say, my aristocrats are not wallowing in luxury. This is the warrior class. Whether knights or karls, nobles are those who can afford to poses more than a spear and a leather tunic. Who can spend time fighting, hunting, and living the vigorous life, rather than working a craft or a plot of land to put food in their belly. They are the ones who make feudal or feudalistic oaths of military service to overlords.

Now, where I see the fighter class as being the best way to represent a pure combatant, the noble should be a decent combatant, certainly on par with a cleric. I'd say the noble, who governs because he looks good on a horse, should be able to step into the fighter class (take a few levels) and not feel like he's some kind of hybrid.

I see the noble in full armors, proficient in all martial weapons, having the cleric BAB, and d8 HD, but with no combat feats. This kind of character can easily take a few levels as fighter and just toughen up.

[Fizz]

On the matter of other classes: clerics and druids are examples of commonly cloistered monk-like hermits that also happen to fight a lot and generally lead a life of quite some hardship; likewise, animals and the average humanoid also do get d8s. Notice, now, how a commoner gets a d4... Why is that? But, of course, because he is not so tough!

Yes, average humanoid gets a d8. That's the point. d8 is average. Guilders are skilled adventurers, they are not wimps sitting around a shop all day- they're blazing new territory looking for treasure and profit. Conversely, the stereotypical rogue lives in the city and survives by NOT getting hit, while the stereotypical wizard spend most of his days studying in a library.

The d8 is right in the middle of hit die types. If you average out all the character classes, the average hit die is just under a d8.


Thus, the question is: should a guilder be equally capable a combatant (as this is the breakdown of a class's BAB and HD) as an aristocrat? Remember, an aristocrat did get combat training.

Since i've never thought of the aristocrat as being a good combatant, i don't think that's a problem. There's nothing in the aristocrat description that suggests they've undergone combat training for much of their life.

But the big thing in all of this is that combat prowess is not just a measure of BAB and hit die. My version of the guilder has NO special offensive abilities. If i were in a fight, i'd still take a rogue (for sneak attack) or a cleric (heavier armor, domains) or a druid (shapechanging) or a monk (built for combat) over my guilder with d8 hit die.

Thus to me, the d8 guilder is a character of average toughness with less than average combat ability. Should he be less than average toughness? Maybe- i'm still debating that myself.


and I certainly like the giving him 8 skill points, plus 2 skill points that he must spend on guilder class skills

So, you want the extra 2 skill points to be forced towards a class skill, and not be available for cross-class skills? Since the guilder can choose his own class skills, does this make much of a difference?


Still, that's the least of my worries; you see, what I greatly dislike about the net is that someone out there makes his ideas known and, when someone disagrees, no matter what, the only retort he can pretty much expect is: "That's OK if that's what you want, but I've already decided; oh, by the way, people, this is my work..."

You proceed from a false premise. I'm challenging you not because "it's my my work" but because i'm trying to understand your position. By explaining my side of why i built it a certain way, you can understand what i'm going for. And by playing devil's advocate to your position i can understand your objections.

I have on several occassions now said that i haven't decided on a d6 or a d8. And that is still the case.

My mind is torn between two archetypes: Consider Van Helsing. The traditional Van Helsing character (a la Bram Stoker's Dracula) would be a d6. But the character in the very silly `Van Helsing' movie played by Hugh Jackman would be a d8 kind of character. Most people here would think of guilders as being the former- the pure expert, not an action hero, so i understand the push towards d6. It's also more consistent with 2nd Ed. So, i am in fact leaning that way. But i wanted to explore the possibilities.


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

Pg 206 of DMH II.

While under designing a Prestige Class the “design principles” are the same.

“Generally speaking the number of skill points and the number of class skills should be directly related. There is no point in having a huge list of class skills if the character doesn’t have the skill points to take advantage of it. The opposite is also true: There’s no point in having a stack of skip points and not having a long list of class skills on which to spend them.

Classes get two, four, six or eight skill points modified by the character’s Intelligence. A prestige class should not “give away” the skill list, making every skill a class skill. Class skill should reflect the nature and the pursuits of the prestige classes.”


Pg 174 of the DMG covers modifying character classes and 175 covers creating character classes.

Pg 174

“If you have created a variant class with sneaking and subterfuge capabilities better than a rogue or a combat oriented class more adept at combat than a fighter, you have gone astray.”

“Various aspects of a class – such as Hit Dice, base attack bonus, or spell’s per day are easy to change, you should be aware of the implications. A rogue with a fighter’s attack bonus is better than a regular rogue, unless her gain in this aspect is offset by some loss elsewhere.”


“Special abilities are somewhat more difficult to alter. Always have a concept with strengths and weaknesses in mind – don’t just try to create the class that can do everything.”

Based on the last version of the guilder you have indeed created a character that is better at "sneaking and subterfuge" since the class can choose 15 class skills and gets more skill points than a rogue the class is better at these "rogue" traits.

You have likewise created a class that is better at rulership than the BRCS noble for the same reasons, total choice of class skills, more skill points and bonus feats from any feat.

With this class - why would anyone choose to play a noble? It would likewise be hard pressed to find a reason for a player to play a rogue (with the exception of the sneak attack ability - which can be substantial though).

[RaspK_FOG]

Aha, we are getting there, I think...

First things first, there's a thing you forgot, Fizz, when it comes to Hit Dice: please do look up on the creatures that actually do get d12s as Hit Dice; right, the only ones who get them are: dragons, undead (no Con bonus!), and unbelievably tough individuals (barbarians, frenzied berserkers, the like).

d4s are likewise, restricted to classes that are, more or less, not the least bit tough. Note that no creature type ever gets a d4 Hit Die! However, the classes that get a d4 signify that's not unheard for a character to not be tough.

So, we are basically left with d6s, d8s, and d10s. What we have here are: fey aberrations, animals, elementals, giants, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, outsiders, plants, vermin constructs, magical beasts, oozes

My question here is: does an NPC guilder resemble a fey or a humanoid/monstrous humanoid/giant of equal Hit Dice and Constitution? I lean closer to fey...

As to the matter of skill points, what I would do, actually, would be this: I would give them 6-sided Hit Dice, 8 skill points per level, proficiency with all simple weapons and up to medium armours and the buckler (maybe), and the following class skills: Appraise, Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Profession, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Speak Language, Swim, and Use Rope, and the ability to learn any 5 of the following skills as class skills: Balance, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Perform, Search, Spot, Survival, and Tumble. This makes him narrower in perspective than the rogue (mind you, the guilder didn't originally get such abilities as hiding in shadows or moving in silence), but allows him the same depth.

If you want to show the dedication a guilder has in learning his craft, allow him to further expand his list of class skills from the ones above, if you like; on the other hand, I particularly like the mechanic employed by the team that made d20 Star Wars and The Wheel of Time: simple grant the guilder the Skill Focus feat for any class skill he has some ranks in (or something like that) every some levels! Isn't it quite simple?

[Danip]

Just to chime in.

I would back d8 HD. Im coming at this from the opposite direction. Instead of matching the HD to the theme, Im considering playability. With d8 your guilder is about as useful as a cleric without spells in combat. That is to say he will fill a 5ft square nicely, keep monsters from getting to the wizard in the back, but probably not deal much damage. With d6 the guilder becomes more of a liability in combat. A few hits and he has to hide back with the wizard, but he doesnt have much to do there.

Class skills. I agree with the DMG, that you shouldnt be able to freely pick all class skills. While a good DM and players can work well with anything, this could lead to some very un-guilder guilders. I think I would ban this class in a non-br game. To juicy for someone to level dip to fill up tumble, k[arcana], or somesuch. Guilder has a natural core of class skills. I like the idea of a few flexible class skills. see my previous posts on this...

* Bonus feat (any)
Small thing, but usually a polished class would just offer a list of bonus feats. although i suppose any feat is equal to guilder knack or skill mastery...

Favored Skill: Similar to rangers favored enemy- Guilder gets +2 (or maybe 2 bonus ranks) in a single skill, then another pair of +2 bonuses at 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th level.
An unnamed bonus of +2 would be the way to do it. Bonus ranks should be avoided.

Weapons: all simple and martial
hmmm...still not sure on two-handed martial weapons. Without an attack style its probably ok. The fighter with a greatsword will still laugh at the guilder with a greatsword.

Skill points: 10
I'll repeat the chorus and say 8 is enough. With favored skills, jack of all trades, some flexible class skills, and skill mastery available at 6th, a guilder kinda owns a rogue skillwise even with just 8. Guilder knack completes the rout. 8 forces the guilder to specialize or be spread a bit thin. If a player is really chomping at the bit for more skill points, point them at guilder knack; that is a butt-load of virtual skill points right there.

Anyway, to sum up. Id say setting some class skills is very important. And 8 is enough to call this class skill monkey.

[Danip]

on the other hand, I particularly like the mechanic employed by the team that made d20 Star Wars and The Wheel of Time: simple grant the guilder the Skill Focus feat for any class skill he has some ranks in (or something like that) every some levels! Isn't it quite simple?
That is a nice mechanic. Although in looking closely at this build, it has so many great skill monkey abilities that skill focus(es) would be over the top.

[RaspK_FOG]

On the matter of weapons: certainly NOT proficient with all martial weapons; being able to USE them, as mentioned in the Havens, is far different from proficient - note that 2e had two mechanics, weapons you could use, and weapon proficiency slots. Thus, the guilder could be proficient in any weapon, but progressed in proficiency as a thief. This should be an indication of more weapon proficiencies, but not with all martial weapons!

[kgauck]

The Rogue gets all simple, plus rapier, shortsword, shortbows, and hand crossbow. If there were something in Havens or the Brecht materials that mentioned another weapon or two, (say the saber or light crossbow) I'd probabably just go ahead and make those weapons part of the Rogue and Guilder starting package.

The guilder can be different things to different people, but he ought not be all things to all people. I'd say for those looking for a secondary combatant, they should look elsewhere. The guilder is a talker, not a fighter. Where the bard is a knowledge and performance expert, the guilder should be an expert negotiator and information gatherer.

He might have the bardic knowledge ability, but limited to current events, market conditions, and knowledge of who might make a good contact.

He might be a guy with bonuses to forming and maintaining contacts.

He should certainly be a guy with excellent market skills and abilities as well as organizational abilities, though as irdeggman suggested, not as many as the noble.

The Complete Scoundrel is out, and Cityscape is out there. I'd like to see a guilder based on the latest 3.5 goodness.

[Fizz]

Thus, the guilder could be proficient in any weapon, but progressed in proficiency as a thief. This should be an indication of more weapon proficiencies, but not with all martial weapons!

Hmmm... good point.

I'd suggest then that Guilders be proficient with all simple weapons, plus Throwing Axe, Light Hammer, Handaxe, light pick, sap, short sword, flail, longsword, rapier, whip, bolas, cutlass, main-gauche.

That gives a nice selection, but nothing overly heavy.


Based on the last version of the guilder you have indeed created a character that is better at "sneaking and subterfuge" since the class can choose 15 class skills and gets more skill points than a rogue the class is better at these "rogue" traits.

Yep, this too is a good point. OK, i'd say a guilder's class skills should be:
Administrate, Appraise, Bluff, Climb, Concentration, Craft, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Forgery, Gather Information, Intimidate, Knowledge (all), Listen, Perform, Profession, Ride, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Speak Language, Swim, Use Magic Device, Use Rope.

Plus the guilder can choose 2 other class skills of his choice. I think this will make sure he doesn't butt-in on the rogue's domain of stealth.


“Generally speaking the number of skill points and the number of class skills should be directly related. There is no point in having a huge list of class skills if the character doesn’t have the skill points to take advantage of it. The opposite is also true: There’s no point in having a stack of skip points and not having a long list of class skills on which to spend them.

I understand this point, but disagree with it too. A huge list of class skills is fine if you want a flexible type of class- one that can be many different things but can't be everything. Conversely, a character than needs to put some points into cross-class skills can be considered a jack-of-all-trades but a master of none. I guess my point here- did they intend cross-class skills to be used or not? They provide a mechanic for lots of flexibility, but then say you have to limit your characters. Always found that passage to be antithetical to typical 3E philosophy.

However, with the class list above it's more closely matched to the number of class skills. I think 10 skills points would still work, because i'd like the guilder to be recognized as the best skills class. But given that most people here aren't keen on it, i will rethink it.


As to the question of the d8 or d6, i am still torn. I can honestly see both working, and both being justifiable. So maybe it should be based solely on balance.


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

The guilder can be different things to different people, but he ought not be all things to all people. I'd say for those looking for a secondary combatant, they should look elsewhere. The guilder is a talker, not a fighter. Where the bard is a knowledge and performance expert, the guilder should be an expert negotiator and information gatherer.


And yet the bard actually is the expert negotiator and information gatherer from the core classes.

Class skills:

Bluff, Deceipher Script, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Listen, Sense Motive, Speak Language (only core class with that as a class skill by the way). Doesn't have Intimidate on class skill list.

Add to that Charisma being the key class ability (for the bardic abilities ands spells) it just makes it more so.

[irdeggman]

I understand this point, but disagree with it too. A huge list of class skills is fine if you want a flexible type of class- one that can be many different things but can't be everything. Conversely, a character than needs to put some points into cross-class skills can be considered a jack-of-all-trades but a master of none. I guess my point here- did they intend cross-class skills to be used or not? They provide a mechanic for lots of flexibility, but then say you have to limit your characters. Always found that passage to be antithetical to typical 3E philosophy.

However, with the class list above it's more closely matched to the number of class skills. I think 10 skills points would still work, because i'd like the guilder to be recognized as the best skills class. But given that most people here aren't keen on it, i will rethink it.
-Fizz

How about the other quote?


Classes get two, four, six or eight skill points modified by the character’s Intelligence

Now if a the guilder justifies having 10 skill points then the noble would without a doubt justify having at least that many. Seeing as how being born to privelege grants access to many more sources of education and thus a better ability, conditions and sources "to learn". The class was given 6 sp as a balance issue, plus it has a d8 HD, avg BAB and 1 good save.

So lay out this guilder side by side with the bard, rogue and noble. Is it "balanced"? Does it have a clear "role" that is not or can't be filled by one of the other classes?


The guiilder from 2nd ed was a regional class and not available unless the character spent a substantial amount of time in the Great Bay region.

[RaspK_FOG]

While not sure I'd give the guilder as many proficiencies as you did, the selestion isn't far-fetched.

On the matter of class skills, I still thing a mechanic like the one I presented fits that theme much better, especially since picking only two class skills really is a little uninteresting... Thus, I still go for 10-12 base class skills (I forgot to add such skills as Administrate; mea culpa) plus an additional 5-6; I also wouldn't give the guilder Use Magic Device - he isn't getting the ability to use magical devices he shouldn't be able to in 2e, so his theme DEFINITELY isn't one of dabbling in the occult.

[graham anderson]

Yep, this too is a good point. OK, i'd say a guilder's class skills should be:
Administrate, Appraise, Bluff, Climb, Concentration, Craft, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Forgery, Gather Information, Intimidate, Knowledge (all), Listen, Perform, Profession, Ride, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Speak Language, Swim, Use Magic Device, Use Rope.

Plus the guilder can choose 2 other class skills of his choice. I think this will make sure he doesn't butt-in on the rogue's domain of stealth.


-Fizz

I would say remove climb, concentration, disable device, perform, use magic device and the 2 free choices and you might have a good list. As it is this is just a power gamers wet dream and to me has little to defend it.

[Fizz]

So lay out this guilder side by side with the bard, rogue and noble. Is it "balanced"? Does it have a clear "role" that is not or can't be filled by one of the other classes?

The role i see for the guilder is that of the skills specialist, similar to what he was in 2nd Ed (with many non-weapon proficiencies). They are meant to be a full adventuring class, getting by on their expertise with skills. Many people here seem to think that guilders should be strong in interpersonal skills. I think that's a part of it, but not the most important part of it.

Think MacGyver, Indiana Jones, Van Helsing.


The guiilder from 2nd ed was a regional class and not available unless the character spent a substantial amount of time in the Great Bay region.

In a previous post you said "Also this is only a 2nd ed thing. Since we are talking about 3.5 the specific cultural restrictions on those classes does not exist anymore. Any culture (except elves) can support paladins (not all are likely, but all can). The same applies to barbarians and druids. Barbarians are more common in Vosgaard and Rjurik, likewise with rangers (although elves are likewise included for commonality for rangers too)." But now you're contradicting yourself by saying this should apply to guilders.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

I would say remove climb, concentration, disable device, perform, use magic device and the 2 free choices and you might have a good list. As it is this is just a power gamers wet dream and to me has little to defend it.

Climb and Use Magic Device, yes. I thought the others would be fine though. Since this guilder has some experience with traps, i though Disable Device would work. Concentration- for doing those skills under duress. Perform, well it's harmless anyways. And the 2 free choices seem... yes, probably unnecessary.

-Fizz

[RaspK_FOG]

Again, I am all for picking a couple of skills as class skills, since that enhances the "expert" feel. I also disagree with making Climb and a few other skills, including Disable Device, standard guilder fair, especially since he didn't get these Rogue abilities: I suggest, instead, that they get to pick them as class skills with the above suggested mechanic. Note that use Magic Device remains off limits in my understanding.

On the other hand, consider this: why do you insist on the Van Helsing imagery? Van Helsing, if we want to replicate him under 2e rules, would be a dual-classed professor (tradesman kit)/explorer (soldier kit) from Masque of the Red Death, which is nothing like BR; stop comparing apples with oranges!

If you want to present an image for the guilder, find an appropriate character from any relevant source, please. McGyver may be close, but he also is a far-fetched character (in all actuality, he resembles more of an 8th-level expert/12th-level tech-specialist from d20 Star Wars to me).

Irdeggman's post is about probability (if a little headstrong) - Havens suggests that the guilder "tradition" is a bit of a Brecht thing, only because their society so strongly believes in actual guilds as they are commonly represented in fantasy literature, a function that wasn't so strong in the ealry Middle Ages (a function represented by the generally weaker expert class, which portrays someone who dedicates himself to some skills, whereas a guilder is a member of a guild). In fact, probability suggests that Vos guilders are nearly (if not truly) unheard of, Basarji guilders are horse and camel sellers and other such examples of Arabian-like merchants, Anuirean guilders are closer to guild members but still retain a late-Medieval/early-Renaissance outset, the Rjurik have very few guilders, and the Brecht are rife with them; in fact, guilders should be more common than experts are in most realms in Brecht.

[irdeggman]

The role i see for the guilder is that of the skills specialist, similar to what he was in 2nd Ed (with many non-weapon proficiencies). They are meant to be a full adventuring class, getting by on their expertise with skills. Many people here seem to think that guilders should be strong in interpersonal skills. I think that's a part of it, but not the most important part of it.

Think MacGyver, Indiana Jones, Van Helsing.

And I now fail to see how the "guilder" - master of business and economics (hence the use of the word "guild" as the base - has much of anything to do with the three examples now being used as the basis for the class. These are more "explorer/adventurer" types than a class who explores and adventures for the purpose of "making a profit".



In a previous post you said "Also this is only a 2nd ed thing. Since we are talking about 3.5 the specific cultural restrictions on those classes does not exist anymore. Any culture (except elves) can support paladins (not all are likely, but all can). The same applies to barbarians and druids. Barbarians are more common in Vosgaard and Rjurik, likewise with rangers (although elves are likewise included for commonality for rangers too)." But now you're contradicting yourself by saying this should apply to guilders.

-Fizz

Not really. I am only reinforcing my belief that the "class" is best handled as a prestige class - which can be tied to a region.

[irdeggman]

Now I think that something is getting "lost" here.

Before anymore "tweaking" I would strongly suggest putting down a "definition" of what the guilder class is supposed to be about. What "role" it fills.

From that point things tend to fall better into place.

I think it has strayed from the 2nd ed Guilder concept, which was a character that revolved around making a profit. He could adventure and explore, but it was always with making a profit (and setting up businesses) as the end in mind. It was also a sea-faring type of class, mostly because of the region it came from - but still.

[Fizz]

Again, I am all for picking a couple of skills as class skills, since that enhances the "expert" feel. I also disagree with making Climb and a few other skills, including Disable Device, standard guilder fair, especially since he didn't get these Rogue abilities: I suggest, instead, that they get to pick them as class skills with the above suggested mechanic. Note that use Magic Device remains off limits in my understanding.


Oh sorry, in my previous post i meant that i agree with you in removing Climb and Use Magic Device. I think Disable could stick around, but i agree it's a borderline call.


On the other hand, consider this: why do you insist on the Van Helsing imagery? Van Helsing, if we want to replicate him under 2e rules, would be a dual-classed professor (tradesman kit)/explorer (soldier kit) from Masque of the Red Death, which is nothing like BR; stop comparing apples with oranges!

Van Helsing, in the sense that he was an expert in the... abnormal. Lots of ranks in Knowledge (arcana), etc. (That's why at first i thought Use Magic Device might be a good skill choice- but in retrospect i agree it shouldn't be there). I think a guilder could very well have `professor' as his occupation.


If you want to present an image for the guilder, find an appropriate character from any relevant source, please. McGyver may be close, but he also is a far-fetched character (in all actuality, he resembles more of an 8th-level expert/12th-level tech-specialist from d20 Star Wars to me).

MacGyver does have the problem of tech level, but the idea of him having a knack with skills to get himself out of tough situations is what i was going for. All those ranks in Knowledge (Chemistry), Knowledge (Physics), combined with him travelling around the world on adventures. Now, MacGyver isn't in it for profit as a typical Brecht might be, but the skill set i find to be quite similar.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

And I now fail to see how the "guilder" - master of business and economics (hence the use of the word "guild" as the base - has much of anything to do with the three examples now being used as the basis for the class. These are more "explorer/adventurer" types than a class who explores and adventures for the purpose of "making a profit".

Well, Indiana Jones is a treasure hunter. He might donate them to a museum in the end, but ultimately he's out finding wealth in obscure places, using a wide variety of skills, both scholarly and physical, to keep himself alive.

Van Helsing and MacGyver i explained in the previous post.

I wasn't using these characters as a base for motives, but as a basis for skills and what they'd be strong at.

Guilders aren't meant to be `merchants' per se. A farmer could be a guilder. A sailor could be a guilder. Neither of those have much to do with social interactions. A guilder could be a merchant/trader, but doesn't have to be.

The traditional Brecht guilder is out for profit, yes. If we expand the guilder to be more than a regional class (as other classes have been in 3E), then we can expand his motives as well.

For example, barbarians are more popular in Vosgaard. But that does not mean EVERY barbarian is well, barbaric. In 3E you could conceivably play an Anuirean barbarian who is quite civil in polite company, and only uses his rage in wartime.

I feel this same notion can apply to the guilder. They can be much more popular in Brechtur where profit is their primary motive. But not every guilder in Cerilia needs to be this way.


Not really. I am only reinforcing my belief that the "class" is best handled as a prestige class - which can be tied to a region.

OK, but that's back to my previous paragraph. I think there is room for a skills-based class that is more than just a purely regional archtype.

I hope that helps clear up what i'm envisioning.


-Fizz

[geeman]

At 08:32 AM 1/17/2007, irdeggman wrote:

>>The role i see for the guilder is that of the skills specialist,
>>similar to what he was in 2nd Ed (with many non-weapon
>>proficiencies). They are meant to be a full adventuring class,
>>getting by on their expertise with skills. Many people here seem to
>>think that guilders should be strong in interpersonal skills. I
>>think that`s a part of it, but not the most important part of it.
>>
>>Think MacGyver, Indiana Jones, Van Helsing.
>
>And I now fail to see how the "guilder" - master of business and
>economics (hence the use of the word "guild" as the base - has much
>of anything to do with the three examples now being used as the
>basis for the class. These are more "explorer/adventurer" types
>than a class who explores and adventures for the purpose of "making a profit".

I have to agree with irdeggman here. The examples being described
(and which are apparently influencing the class description--at least
regarding class skills) all strike me as being better portrayed by
standard "adventuring" character classes, and mostly that of the
rogue in particular. When it comes to portraying the guilder I do
agree with the emphasis on skills, but those skills should be
directly related to commerce. Indiana Jones is very likely a simple
rogue (with several levels in some sort of prestige class in D20
terms) rather than a guilder. MacGyver too. Van Helsing... well,
for that one I just don`t know about what incarnation one is
imagining, but a guilder? It`s hard to picture him being a guilder
in just about any portrayal I know of, even that horrible
movie.... He`s some sort of scholar/hunter type PC.

The guilder should be related to actual money transactions of just
about any stripe. He may "steal" it outright by adventuring or he
may engage in more traditional trade (and, indeed, I would qualify
many such transactions as being playable, adventure level
encounters--though they are definitely not the norm in D&D) so my
choices for guilder type characters to base such a class on would be
Don Vito Corleone from the Godfather (again, there`s a prestige class
going on there, but he`s basically the regent of crime oriented guild
and law holdings) Barabas from the Jew of Malta by Christopher
Marlowe and, for a more historical example, Marco Polo. Those
characters indicate the range of characters possible within a single
guilder class, and that such characters are apt for use by PCs since
their adventuring potential is exemplified so well. Other historical
examples that show the range of personalities, alignments and
attitudes of people who might be described as guilders would include
many members of the Order of the Templars, the coffee houses of
London (Jonathan Miles whose coffee house became the London Stock
Exchange and that of Edward Lloyd which became Lloyd`s of London) and
maybe Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations. (That last is
probably better portrayed by some sort of Scholar/Sage class, really,
but in the absence of that a guilder is as close as we can come.)

I`d also like to argue that though guilders have a particular
emphasis amongst the Brecht, it is a pretty universal class. There
are several examples of characters in the published materials who are
not Brecth (even not human) who would probably best be described as
having levels in such a class. Of the examples I listed above the
only one who might really be described as a real world equivalent of
a Brecht merchant might be the Venetian Marco Polo.

Gary

[graham anderson]

I would agree with geeman as a lot of what is being talked about for the guilder is better represented by already existing classes.

[Fizz]

The guilder should be related to actual money transactions of just about any stripe. He may "steal" it outright by adventuring or he
may engage in more traditional trade (and, indeed, I would qualify
many such transactions as being playable, adventure level
encounters--though they are definitely not the norm in D&D)

I guess i've been trying to expand it from being a purely monetary class. In one sense, anything could be considered `money', be it gold coins or a priceless ancient statue.


so my
choices for guilder type characters to base such a class on would be
Don Vito Corleone from the Godfather (again, there`s a prestige class
going on there, but he`s basically the regent of crime oriented guild
and law holdings) Barabas from the Jew of Malta by Christopher
Marlowe and, for a more historical example, Marco Polo. Those
characters indicate the range of characters possible within a single
guilder class,
...
many members of the Order of the Templars, the coffee houses of
London (Jonathan Miles whose coffee house became the London Stock
Exchange and that of Edward Lloyd which became Lloyd`s of London) and
maybe Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations.


I have to admit, i really like these examples. You're quite right in that Marco Polo would be the perfect example for the typical Brecht guilder. That feels right to me.

So maybe i've been too concerned in making him overly generic. Maybe the monetary side should stay there. At the same time though, he should have more than just social skills and more abilities than just those related to negotiating or making a deal.

-Fizz

[geeman]

At 01:52 PM 1/17/2007, Fizz wrote:

>I guess i`ve been trying to expand it from being a purely monetary
>class. In one sense, anything could be considered `money`, be it
>gold coins or a priceless ancient statue.

For some reason, this reminds me of the James Bond film
Goldfinger. Oh, I don`t think JB is a guilder (though he does have a
pretty interesting ability to appraise things...) but Auric
Goldfinger certainly could be interpreted that way. What about the
guy who ran the UK gold exchange or whatever it was who advised (over
disappointing brandy) Bond at the beginning of the movie? That makes sense.

Gary

[Danip]

So maybe i've been too concerned in making him overly generic. Maybe the monetary side should stay there. At the same time though, he should have more than just social skills and more abilities than just those related to negotiating or making a deal.

I do think that your skill monkey/master version went a bit too generic. [free class skills etc...] While D&D definately needs a class with skill points that isnt rogue, there is some good juicy flavor in guilders as an idea.

That said, D&D is an heroic game for adventurers. Adam Smith would be a poor rolemodel [unless he had a secret superhero identity of which i am unaware!]. I like how you have in this thread expanded the idea of a guilder beyond merely merchant master. While you went with "character good at skills" and I went with "character who uses intellegence", I suspect there are even more directions to look for abilities from.

"making a profit" has been mentioned as another direction to look in. Any specific abilities come to mind anyone? I shy away from abilities like "10% increase on profession checks to make money," or "buy goods for 5% less", because they arnt very 'heroic'. D&D isnt a great Spreadsheets&Salaries kinda game. perhaps something like a bonus to diplomacy if you add a bribe [good vs. goblin guards]...

Thinking of rolemodels:
The Godfather is a great one. I dont know if anyone has played the godfather video game, but it takes you thru the career of a godfather from lowly start to pinnacle, grand theft auto style. Abilities that spring to mind; intimidating presence, willingness to use varied weapons [exotic or improvised weapons?], innuendo/cant, contacts, favors owed, ability to look squeeky clean, blackmarket...

Marco Polo! One of the highest level guilders on earth for sure. Abilities; languages, pidgin, access to leaders, surviving long treks, finding guides/henchmen/followers, not getting lost, botany, spot, cultural adapability, noodle magic...

Bond villians. Many fictional villians fit the guilder concept. Particularly anyone with an organization that isnt military/religious/magical. abilities; henchmen/goons, hideout/lair, fronts, cleverness...

Of course as we make the guilder a bit more generic and adaptable, we should look carefully at what core flavor to keep and impose upon his abilities. Class skills and a few abilities really make a rogue a rogue and a paladin a paladin...

[RaspK_FOG]

Mechanics I'd look up are: Some free skills (yes, I insist on that). Skill Focus. Illicit Barter? Contacts Bouns feats such as Agile and all.

On to this matter: I want to make my standing clear so that things can wrap up at some point...

First of all, we can pretty much expect any I-gain-more-than-2-base-skill-points-per-level character to have a class skill or two that he has (next to) no ranks in; in fact, class skills show what potential that class has in learning that skill, how good its grasp of it is.

Now, let us consider for a moment: Havens says that guilders can be sailors, farmers, practically anything that can turn a profit; that's the whole point of the class, anyway, since it represents the middle-or-sometimes-low-classed adventurer that strives to make some profit out of one deal or another.

Here's my view on the matter: with some skills, you can be sure that the guilder has them - they are standard fair. With others, though, there come other matters...

A scholar sort of guilder should get to pick many knowledge skills, whereas a sailor should probably have only Knowledge (geography) and/or (nature).

[geeman]

At 05:09 PM 1/17/2007, Danip wrote:

>Adam Smith would be a poor rolemodel [unless he had a secret
>superhero identity of which i am unaware!].

Not that I know of either... though he was reportedly kidnapped by
gypsies as a child, so maybe the *real* Adam Smith went on to
adventure with a band of wanderers while the "Adam Smith" who was
returned to his family was, in fact, a spare....

Gary

[dalor]

I would second the idea that the Guilder is more of a
Prestige Class idea.

The reason all the core classes are available in every
region is because they are core classes. If Guilder
is published in my 3.5 players book...then it should
be available to all regions.

Just my opinion.


Anthony Edwards

--- irdeggman <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net
> message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
>
http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3015
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> The role i see for the guilder is that of the skills
> specialist, similar to what he was in 2nd Ed (with
> many non-weapon proficiencies). They are meant to be
> a full adventuring class, getting by on their
> expertise with skills. Many people here seem to
> think that guilders should be strong in
> interpersonal skills. I think that`s a part of it,
> but not the most important part of it.
>
> Think MacGyver, Indiana Jones, Van Helsing.
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> And I now fail to see how the "guilder" - master of
> business and economics (hence the use of the word
> "guild" as the base - has much of anything to do
> with the three examples now being used as the basis
> for the class. These are more "explorer/adventurer"
> types than a class who explores and adventures for
> the purpose of "making a profit".
>
>
>
>
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> In a previous post you said "Also this is only a 2nd
> ed thing. Since we are talking about 3.5 the
> specific cultural restrictions on those classes does
> not exist anymore. Any culture (except elves) can
> support paladins (not all are likely, but all can).
> The same applies to barbarians and druids.
> Barbarians are more common in Vosgaard and Rjurik,
> likewise with rangers (although elves are likewise
> included for commonality for rangers too)." But now
> you`re contradicting yourself by saying this should
> apply to guilders.
>
> -Fizz
> -----------------------------
>
>
>
> Not really. I am only reinforcing my belief that
> the "class" is best handled as a prestige class -
> which can be tied to a region.
>
>

>
> Birthright-l Archives:
> http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to
> LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>
>




__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front

[RaspK_FOG]

There are 3 points of view we can have here: Variant class - take a class, tamper with it slightly, and come up with a new outlook. New class - take a theme and expand it into a new set of mechanics. Prestige Class - build a New Class with unique abilities and the necessity to maintain a minimum set of abilities to progress in and make use of this class.

[Fizz]

OK, i've considered all the ideas here. So here's my next version:

------------------------

THE GUILDER

Hit Die: d6
Saves: Good Ref and Wil
BAB: moderate (as a rogue)
Skill points: 8
Class Skills: Administrate, Appraise, Bluff, Craft, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Forgery, Gather Information, Knowledge (all), Listen, Perform, Profession, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Speak Language, Survival, Use Rope.

Weapons: all simple weapons, plus light melee martial weapons, plus longsword, cutlass, rapier, main-gauche,
Armor: light and medium and all shields except tower shields.

Class features:

Favored Skill: Similar to rangers favored enemy- At 1st level the guilder gets +2 in a single skill of his choice. At every level divisible by 5, choose another skill- guilder gets +2 in this skill and another +2 in one of his previous favorite skills (including the one he just took).

Pidgin: At 2nd level, this works like Decipher Script but for spoken language.

Jack of all trades: at 4th level, use any skill untrained.

Guilder ability: At 6th, 10th, 14th, 18th level. See below

Trap Sense: At 7th level, as a rogue

Slippery Mind: At 11th level, as a rogue


Special abilities:
Choose one at 6th level and every 4 levels thereafter

* Favored Market: (from Danip)
A guilder may select a market in which he is especially skilled from among those in the Table:Guilder Favored Markets. The guilder receives a +2 bonus on Gather Information and Knowledge(local) checks in those markets. The guilder also receives a +2 bonus on one skill related to the market selected. This additional skill bonus may be used outside of the region or culture of the market.

Favored Markets Bonus
Rjurik............................survival
Vosgaard ......................intimidate
Anuire ..........................knowledge(nobility and royalty)
Khinasi .........................knowledge(arcana)
Brechtur .......................profession(merchant)
Dwarven .......................any one craft skill
Goblin ...........................?
Elven ............................?
Sea-bourne Shipping ........profession(sailor)
Overland Caravans ..........handle animal
Blackmarket ...................intimidate
Banking .........................profession(bookkeeper)

*Guilder Knack (from Danip): For any skill check you can use 1/2 your guilder level [rounded up] in place of the number of ranks you have in the skill [even if that number is 0].
You cant take 10 with guilder knack. If the skill does not allow untrained checks, you must have at least 1 actual rank to attempt the check. [taken from phb2 p35, bardic knack]

* Intellectual agility (from Danip): Starting at 7th level the guilder can channel her intellect to more physical needs. She adds her intelligence bonus to her initiative checks and reflex saves.

[i]* Opportunist (as rogue)

* Improvised Tools: With 2 skills of the guilder's chosing, the penalty for not having proper tools is halved

* Silver Tongue: Constant dealing with others gives the guilder a keen sense of how to make them believe his lies. He may attempt a retry of the Bluff skill, but with a –5 penalty.

* Skill Mastery (as rogue)

* Trapfinding (as rogue)

* Bonus feat: from the following list: Alertness, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Diligent, Investigator, Negotiator, Persuasive, Quick Draw, (from BRCS) Black Strike, City Dweller, Erudition, Master Merchant,


--------------

What's everybody think?

-Fizz

[RaspK_FOG]

I'd say you still fret about the mechanics more than you should; to me, the the list of class features you just gave seems generic and clattered.

First of all, is he supposed to be a grandmaster (like an expert) or a dilletante? Your suggestion seems to be going for both, which is contradictory.

On the other hand, some of the mechanics picked also fail to make much mechanical sense other than: I just want him to be better than the rest. Pidgin, in particular, as well as Jack of All Trades, stumble along, the former being an obvious advantage over the master class of communication skills, the bard, the latter being obviously based on the bard's role.

Another issue: Silver Tongue fails to grasp its theme - a better mechanic would be to adjust the Sense Motive modifier from the circumstances of your bluff by -5, for example.

[Fizz]

First of all, is he supposed to be a grandmaster (like an expert) or a dilletante? Your suggestion seems to be going for both, which is contradictory.

Hmmm... that was not the intent. The idea was to make him a skill-centric class. He may be an expert with some skills, but is still capable of using other skills. Kind of like a fighter who specializes in a few weapons or fighting styles- he's still dangerous outside of that style.


On the other hand, some of the mechanics picked also fail to make much mechanical sense other than: I just want him to be better than the rest. Pidgin, in particular, as well as Jack of All Trades, stumble along, the former being an obvious advantage over the master class of communication skills, the bard, the latter being obviously based on the bard's role.

Well, if we use Marco Polo as our ideal guilder would not Pidgin make sense? There's a lot of different languages between Italy and China.

As for Jack of All Trades, this is the idea to make the guilder capable in skills that aren't his area of expertise. Even though he's not formally trained in it, somewhere in his travels he saw someone do it, so the guilder can try to emulate it. Kind of like someone who watched a tv episode on how to give CPR- hasn't had the training but saw enough to go through the same motions.

I think Trap Sense works, as guilders are seeking profit and adventure, they can get a sense of when they've been ambushed, mechanically or otherwise. But Slippery Mind could go- don't think it's quite right.



Another issue: Silver Tongue fails to grasp its theme - a better mechanic would be to adjust the Sense Motive modifier from the circumstances of your bluff by -5, for example.

I don't understand what you mean here. I <ahem> borrowed this idea from the 3E conversion of Dark Sun, which has a few new special abilities for the rogue.


-Fizz

[Danip]

from irdeggman in other thread
“making a profit consistently”.

The entire class was built around that precept.

So far I haven't gotten that "theme" or "focus" from any of the proposals made. I have gotten a class that is based on skills and is roughly as powerful in combat as a ranger (avg BAB vice Good BAB but otherwise pretty close).

Hmmm...your right. Mostly we are exploiting the link between skills and business to create a 'monetary' theme. The brcs itself recognized this link. appraise, dip, craft, profession, sense motive, etc for guild regent collection.

Currently rogues are the best guild regent model because these are class skills for them. But none of the rogues other abilities speak to guildcraft/money at all. Other classes, nobel/bard/expert, have monetary abilities only within the number of skill points and class skill sets.

So one looks for other abilities. This is tricky, because you try to be balanced in comparison to rogue and noble. You cant just add '+1 per 5 levels on domain action checks with guilds,' because you would totally hose rogues and nobles in comparison. People would only be rogue guild regents if they were in love with sneak attack.

So abilities people suggest attack the 'monetary theme' obliquely. Marco Polo languages and travel stuff. improvised tools. mental sheilding for negotiations. Skill bonuses which could go towards merchanty skills, but not influence domain action rolls. bonus followers with Leadership.

Very few hit the 'monetary theme' more closely.
like kgauk's haggler

Haggler: At 1st and 7th level, the guilder gains a +5 competance bonus on any Diplomacy check made to buy or sell. At one time he selects legal market transactions and the other time illegal, black market transactions. The character may take them in either order.

(Although Ive never used diplomacy checks to buy or sell. My group doesnt have this houserule use of diplomacy. why wasnt in my version)

also my favored markets [tho again just skill bumps]...

D&D doesnt give us alot of specific rules mechanics for attacking a 'monetary theme' directly. But i think that all of the ideas that have been constructively suggested show that we can a 3.5 base class that yells "the guilder is an adventuring trader"!! (as the 2nd edition described the guilder) There is plenty that can be used to create a base class that can model this wide theme.

The elements needed:
-flavor based class skills
-enough skill points so that you wouldnt rather be a rogue for his skills
-some flexibility for the various guilder definitions people have [see other thread]
-more combat ability than a rogue without sneak attack. for the word "adventuring" in the description
-class abilities that address the 'monetary theme' obliquely. some of which are very useful [power of barbarian's rage level]. some of which are weak but on theme [power of rogue's trapsense +1].

I think class skills and skill points have been discussed well in this thread.

That leaves mixing up abilities. need;
-a few combat abilities
-a few flexible abilities [bonus feats, new class skills, or list of specials]
-a few that help skills
-a few that scream 'profit', 'trader', or 'business world' even if weak/specialized

Mixing together so that the class isnt just about one thing [not too flexible, not generic skill master, not bad at everything but making spreadsheets]...

Any new ideas of abilities to put in these 4 slots? I think so far we have seen alot in 'help skills' and 'flexibility'. Many are apt to drop combat altogether, because "adventuring trader" doesnt automatically point at one combat style. And 'TRADER!!' yelling abilities have proven hard to make up in D&D.

[kgauck]

The leadership skills that I am sure have a place in the guilder, could be more narrowly focused for trade and crafting to get the flavor Danip is describing. For example, the guilder might have an aid another bonus, so that when overseeing the work of others, whether craftsmen or professionals, his bonus is better than +2 for normal aid.

He may be able to pass on key advice, reflected in a +2 bonus to a single Will save to resist charms that would directly contradict the guilder's mission.

He may be able to gain a +2 bonus to bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, or sense motive checks used to influence his followers.

The guilder might be able to gain a significant (say +3) bonus in sense motive or appraise checks to determine if goods are not what they are represented as being.

The guilder might be able to do a single favor for a contact once per level, that allows him to call that favor in and get the contact to perform his benefit in addition to the x/time period normally. (Maybe call this "one hand washes the other" or "I'll scratch your back".)

[Fizz]

-a few combat abilities
-a few flexible abilities [bonus feats, new class skills, or list of specials]
-a few that help skills
-a few that scream 'profit', 'trader', or 'business world' even if weak/specialized


I'm not even sure the combat abilities are necessary. I don't know about everyone else, but combat is way down the list for me as to what the guilder can do.

Flexible abilities, we have a few, but more ideas are good too.

Help skills, we have a few of those.

And the abilities that scream 'profit', 'trader', etc. Those are the big ones we're missing.

Let's think about it this way. In D&D terms, what would Marco Polo have been? What skills/abilities would he have had? What about other explorers, say Vasco de Gama? Or Ponce de Leon?

Does anyone know anything about Marco Volo of the Forgotten Realms. The covers and descriptions that i vaguely recall suggested to me that he was an explorer/expert type, but i confess mostly ignorance. Might he be a good source of inspiration?


-Fizz

[RaspK_FOG]

OK, now I know why we would have always disagreed in the interpretation of the guilder: "Marco Volo" is but a pun the designers made on Marco Polo and the modules' main NPC, Volothamp; who just so happens to be a bard!

Note that Volo, as Volothamp commonly introduces himself, was not introduced in that series for the first time; in fact, he is a long running NPC of quite some interest, an assistant to Elminster (who, at times, wishes he didn't have to settle Volo's scores), and one of the two narrators commonly used by Greenwood in his 2e supplements for the Forgotten Realms campaign setting (the other being, of course, Elminster) - an interesting running joke, by the way, is that Elminster annotates Volo's notes and guides, usually making one comment or another how he had to remove certain pieces of information from the text, so that not yet another mage popped around to deal with the fool that would be peddling other people's secrets!

All in all, and while Volo is a well-rounded, if a little knocked up on the head, character with lots of competence in skills and a good grasp of opportunity, he would have never made a successful guilder, not really for more than one reason.

If you want to strive for a guilder type of character, you should go for more of an expert than a dilletante.

An interesting idea popped in my mind just now: what if the guilder got only 6 skill points per level, but got to choose each level if he would get an additional +2 skill points (for a total of 8 base skill points) or another cross-class skill as a guilder skill, with the exception of some skills (e.g. Spellcraft and Use Magic Device).

The reason I dislike Pidging is that, first of all, you didn't check up on a lot of things; amongst others, Decipher Script takes some time, which certainly isn't how you may have had it working in your mind; another problem is that, in my mind, it doesn't feel quite defined. Sure, I would easily adjudicate that rule, but you should do something about it and set it on stone. I also dislike how that kind of disregards how bards are the master communicators in the game.

[Fizz]

An interesting idea popped in my mind just now: what if the guilder got only 6 skill points per level, but got to choose each level if he would get an additional +2 skill points (for a total of 8 base skill points) or another cross-class skill as a guilder skill, with the exception of some skills (e.g. Spellcraft and Use Magic Device).

Hmmm... interesting. Do you mean that these +2 skill points would work as normal skills points, being applied with all the usual restrictions, or an extra +2 that can be applied on top of what already is allotted (potentially allowing the normal rank limit to be exceeded)? Also, do these 2 initial skill points go towards creating ranks? Can he do this only once, or could he make 4 cross-class skills into class skills each level (and not have any skill points for anywhere else that level)?

Another way of saying this is: Each level, the guilder may (if he chooses), sacrifice 2 skill points and make any cross-class skill into a class skill.




The reason I dislike Pidging is that, first of all, you didn't check up on a lot of things; amongst others, Decipher Script takes some time, which certainly isn't how you may have had it working in your mind; another problem is that, in my mind, it doesn't feel quite defined. Sure, I would easily adjudicate that rule, but you should do something about it and set it on stone. I also dislike how that kind of disregards how bards are the master communicators in the game.


Actually, i do have a write up for it. I didn't include it to save space and time. But here it is:

Pidgin: Guilders have a knack for communicating despite barriers of an uncommon language. He can communicate and understand simple concepts, such as the need for food, desire to trade, warnings, etc. This works similar to the Decipher Script skill. The guilder makes a Pidgin check equal to d20 plus his Intelligence modifier plus his level. The DC varies with the complexity of information.
· DC 20: Very simple short messages such as greetings or warnings. “Danger ahead.”
· DC 25: Short messages of moderate detail, such as explaining how to get to a town, or a basic description of a person. “Tall elf with blonde hair.”
· DC 30: Longer message or a message requiring details, such as the location of an item within a specific house. “The gem is hidden behind the bar of the Ugly Unicorn Inn.”
· DC 35+: Very complex concepts or those involving specific jargon, such as a describing how to build a catapult or cast a magic spell. “The spyglass must have a focal length of 2 inches and be made of pure adamantine crystal.”
If the guilder can speak a language with a similar root, he gains a +5 bonus to the check.


The original idea behind this was that a guilder would be a character who was constantly dealing with foreigners, or else he'd be the foreigner. As such he'd pick up bits of words along his travels. Presumably Marco Polo picked up more than a few words on his way to China and back.

That said, i do understand your concerns about showing up the bard. They do work a bit differently, however. Bards do get Comprehend Languages as a spell, so they're still superior in this regard. For that matter, i wouldn't mind if Bards got this ability too.

Unfortunately, speaking languages in core 3E rules is an all-or-nothing affair. If we adopted rules like are used in the Midnight or Kalamar settings, this problem could be adjudicated with ordinary skill ranks.


-Fizz

[RaspK_FOG]

I would go with something like this:

Broad Skills: Whenever the guilder gains a level, he may sacrifice 2 skill points to add a single cross-class skill to his class skills as a guilder; he must pick any one of the following skills (the choices excluding such skills as the ones mentioned above).

[geeman]

At 03:59 AM 1/21/2007, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>An interesting idea popped in my mind just now: what if the guilder
>got only 6 skill points per level, but got to choose each level if
>he would get an additional +2 skill points (for a total of 8 base
>skill points) or another cross-class skill as a guilder skill, with
>the exception of some skills (e.g. Spellcraft and Use Magic Device).

I think you might be on to something there, but that particular
mechanic is a little awkward. What about something like class
special abilities that were roughly equivalent to Skill Emphasis
feats with a list of skills based on a merchant/financial theme to
which they could be applied?

I`ve been mulling over other literary and historical examples of
characters who might be used as inspiration for a guilder character
class: Jimmy Hoffa, Nute Gunray from Star Wars, any of the directors
(or just about anyone in administration) of the East India Trading
Company or delegates of the Dutch East India Company especially Jan
Coen, or the Lords Nineteen of the Dutch West India Company
(particularly good for the Brecht, of course.) Samuel Pepys, Daniel
Defoe, both the real world Richard Whittington and the character Dick
Whittington in Stuart Ardern`s pantomime, Joseph Kennedy, George
Hearst and (rather ironically) Herbert Hoover.

Most of those examples suffer from a scale problem in that the
"holdings" they ruled are much larger than BR domain system, but as
these are examples for a character class not necessarily the domain
system I think they work fine. I should mention, however, that I
think the character class should be recognized for more than its
potential as a regent of guild holdings. Any of the other regents
might have guilders amongst their staff. The "Master of Coin" for a
landed regent would be a guilder, the officer in charge of inventory
and supply (like Samuel Pepys for the Brit Navy) could easily be a
guilder. It`s important to remember that for many years "Colonel"
was used to describe a successful merchant in the U.S. because of the
custom for the officers of that rank to take charge of procurements
and selling off surplus for the army.

Gary

[irdeggman]

This is the feat you want for gaining bonus skill points. Mechanically sound and already in the RAW. Since it is a general feat it doesn't require any special psionic rules to be used. Add this feat to the list of guilder bonuse feats and that aspect should be covered.


From Expanded Psionics Handbook (also the SRD – so it is OGC and readily available):

OPEN MINDED [GENERAL]
You are naturally able to reroute your memory, mind, and skill expertise.
Benefit: You immediately gain an extra 5 skill points. You spend these skill points as normal. If you spend them on a cross-class skills they count as 1/2 ranks. You cannot exceed the normal maximum ranks for your level in any skill.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time, you immediately gain another 5 skill points.

[irdeggman]

I don't have access to my copy of Complete Scoundrel at the moment but there is something in there that bears some interest IMO.

The skill tricks concept.

Basically they are like minor feats. You spend 2 skill points and gain a skill trick. What that allows is an expanded use of a skill, a use that is not normally allowed. It also requires an investment in ranks to one or more applicable skills in order to gain. IIRC the mimimun is 6 ranks with some up to 12. To incorporate "pigeon" into this concept something like 6 ranks in Sense Motive and Diplomacy might allow "purchase" of the trick. That allows pretty much what you are trying to get across with pigeon. But it might be best to not have any checks involved only a flat out benefit - since the character would have to spend sp on the "trick" after spending all of the sp on the various applicable skills. Just a though.

I don't think the information for CS is OGC so we can't use the information directly - but I believe that the mechanic use is still allowable - but I'm not real certain on that.

[dalor]

Just as an aside:

Volo was in no way an associate of Elminster...in
fact, Elminster wouldn`t even let the man IN
Shadowdale where the Wizard El lived at all.


--- RaspK_FOG <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net
> message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
>
http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3015
>
> RaspK_FOG wrote:
> OK, now I know why we would have always disagreed in
> the interpretation of the guilder: "Marco Volo" is
> but a pun the designers made on Marco Polo and the
> modules` main NPC, Volothamp; who just so happens to
> be a bard!
>
> Note that Volo, as Volothamp commonly introduces
> himself, was not introduced in that series for the
> first time; in fact, he is a long running NPC of
> quite some interest, an assistant to Elminster (who,
> at times, wishes he didn`t have to settle Volo`s
> scores), and one of the two narrators commonly used
> by Greenwood in his 2e supplements for the Forgotten
> Realms campaign setting (the other being, of course,
> Elminster) - an interesting running joke, by the
> way, is that Elminster annotates Volo`s notes and
> guides, usually making one comment or another how he
> had to remove certain pieces of information from the
> text, so that not yet another mage popped around to
> deal with the fool that would be peddling other
> people`s secrets!
>
> All in all, and while Volo is a well-rounded, if a
> little knocked up on the head, character with lots
> of competence in skills and a good grasp of
> opportunity, he would have never made a successful
> guilder, not really for more than one reason.
>
> If you want to strive for a guilder type of
> character, you should go for more of an expert than
> a dilletante.
>
> An interesting idea popped in my mind just now: what
> if the guilder got only 6 skill points per level,
> but got to choose each level if he would get an
> additional +2 skill points (for a total of 8 base
> skill points) or another cross-class skill as a
> guilder skill, with the exception of some skills
> (e.g. Spellcraft and Use Magic Device).
>
>

>
> Birthright-l Archives:
> http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to
> LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>
>




__________________________________________________ __________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news

[Fizz]

This is the feat you want for gaining bonus skill points.

I like Open-Minded. I think it's exactly in the spirit of the class (same way that 2nd Ed Guilders had extra proficiency slots), and won't cause balance issues. I'll include this in the next version.

Would it be too much to grant this as a bonus feat at 1st or 2nd level? (Would NOT be multiplied by 4 if at 1st.)

The skill tricks concept might work as sources of inspiration for special abilities. I don't have Scoundrel, but i suspect we could simplify the mechanic and turn them into special abilities unique to the guilder. Maybe.

-Fizz

[irdeggman]

Would it be too much to grant this as a bonus feat at 1st or 2nd level? (Would NOT be multiplied by 4 if at 1st.)

-Fizz

It depends on the remainder of the class progression. Remember that at first level the character could still take the feat anyway, since it is a "General" feat. So technically anyone could take it. But since it is a feat - you never multiply the sp gained by 4 (like at the start).

[kgauck]

Guilders are probabaly getting significantly more skills at 1st level (assuming the PC starts as guilder) than most other classes anyway. A benefit like this at 1st level would get lost on that other advantage. At 2nd level, and beyond, its something special.

[Fizz]

Guilders are probabaly getting significantly more skills at 1st level (assuming the PC starts as guilder) than most other classes anyway. A benefit like this at 1st level would get lost on that other advantage. At 2nd level, and beyond, its something special.

Yeah, that's what i was thinking. Nice to have confirmation. It also helps prevent someone from taking the class for a single level just to get a ridiculous number of skill points. I think 2nd level is a good place for it. I'll incorporate that into the next version.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

OK, i've taken some of the ideas of the last few rounds and put them together. This is my favorite version thus far.

------------------------

THE GUILDER

Hit Die: d6
Saves: Good Ref and Wil
BAB: moderate (as a rogue)
Skill points: 8
Class Skills: Administrate, Appraise, Bluff, Craft, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Forgery, Gather Information, Knowledge (all), Listen, Profession, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Speak Language, Survival, Use Rope.

Weapons: all simple weapons, plus light melee martial weapons, plus longsword, cutlass, rapier, main-gauche,
Armor: light and medium and all shields except tower shields.

Class features:

Favored Skill: Similar to rangers favored enemy- At 1st level the guilder gets +2 in a single skill of his choice. At every level divisible by 5, choose another skill- guilder gets +2 in this skill and another +2 in one of his previous favorite skills (including the one he just took).

Open-Minded: The guilder receives this as a bonus feat at 2nd level. (See feat description below.)

Expanded Skills: Beginning at 2nd level, the guilder can sacrifice 2 skill points to make any cross-class skill into a class skill. He can only do this once every level, and the 2 skill points sacrificed do not go towards creating a rank.

Flexible: At 4th level, the guilder has developed an intuition about how to do things despite not having the experience. He may use any skill untrained.

Trap Sense: At 7th level, as a rogue.

Guilder ability: At 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th level. See below


Special abilities:
Choose one at 8th level and every 3 levels thereafter

* Favored Market: (from Danip)
A guilder may select a market in which he is especially skilled from among those in the Table:Guilder Favored Markets. The guilder receives a +2 bonus on Gather Information and Knowledge(local) checks in those markets. The guilder also receives a +2 bonus on one skill related to the market selected. This additional skill bonus may be used outside of the region or culture of the market.

Favored Markets Bonus
Rjurik............................survival
Vosgaard ......................intimidate
Anuire ..........................knowledge(nobility and royalty)
Khinasi .........................knowledge(arcana)
Brechtur .......................profession(merchant)
Dwarven .......................any one craft skill
Goblin ...........................?
Elven ............................?
Sea-bourne Shipping ........profession(sailor)
Overland Caravans ..........handle animal
Blackmarket ...................intimidate
Banking .........................profession(bookkeeper)

* Guilder Knack: (from Danip) For any skill check you can use 1/2 your guilder level [rounded up] in place of the number of ranks you have in the skill [even if that number is 0].
You cant take 10 with guilder knack. If the skill does not allow untrained checks, you must have at least 1 actual rank to attempt the check. [taken from phb2 p35, bardic knack]

* Haggler: (from KGauck) The guilder gains a +3 competance bonus on any Diplomacy or Bluff check made when attempting a financial transaction of either a legel or illicit nature.

* Intellectual agility (from Danip): The guilder can channel her intellect to more physical needs. She adds her intelligence bonus to her initiative checks and reflex saves.

[i]* Slippery Mind (as rogue)

* Improvised Tools: With 2 skills of the guilder's chosing, the penalty for not having proper tools is halved

* Silver Tongue: Constant dealing with others gives the guilder a keen sense of how to make them believe his lies. He may attempt a retry of the Bluff skill, but with a –5 penalty.

* Skill Mastery (as rogue)

* Supervisor: (from KGauck) When using the Aid Another option with any skill, the guilder's assistance grants a +4 bonus instead of the usual +2.

* Trapfinding (as rogue)

* Bonus feat: from the following list: Alertness, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Diligent, Investigator, Negotiator, Persuasive, Quick Draw; From BRCS: Black Strike, City Dweller, Erudition, Master Merchant; Open-Minded (below)



OPEN MINDED [GENERAL]
You are naturally able to reroute your memory, mind, and skill expertise.
Benefit: You immediately gain an extra 5 skill points. You spend these skill points as normal. If you spend them on a cross-class skills they count as 1/2 ranks. You cannot exceed the normal maximum ranks for your level in any skill.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time, you immediately gain another 5 skill points.

------------------


What's the verdict?


-Fizz

[Danip]

First impression is that it seems a bit lite. Low density of moderate to weak abilities. With no killer app that grows and makes it worth to stay in guilder [like sneak attack dice or spell progression].

Skill focus seems like a good bonus feat, among others...

favored markets and favored skill are functionally similar. Maybe find some way to combine the two into a slightly beefier killer app that comes every 4 or so levels? Without the ranger's extra damage this is weaker than his favored enemy, so more often should be ok.

[irdeggman]

Of the bonus BRCS feats you've listed only Master Merchant made the final cut for the Chapter one – the other feats are no longer part of the BRCS.
I would add Dwarven Artisan and Seafarer (from BRCS) to the list.